4 ms·
Cable companies acquire a license to rebroadcast. That is how they operate. Aereo didn't have that. I think that is more than enough to distinguish Aereo from
by rhino369 12y ago
Cable companies acquire a license to rebroadcast. That is how they operate.
Aereo didn't have that.
I think that is more than enough to distinguish Aereo from the cablevision law. But the Supreme Court doesn't haven't to follow Cablevision. That wasn't a SCOTUS case. And other circuits had conflicting rulings.
- kevincennis 12y agoCable companies have a license to retransmit live programming. That's a completely separate issue from time-shifted transmissions. Cablevision didn't have a license that allowed consumers to remotely record and play back shows. But the courts decided that the company didn't need a license, because it was the users rather than Cablevision who were performing in that instance, and thus it was considered a private performance. But yeah, I'm fully aware that SCOTUS wasn't bound by the Second Circuit decision in Cablevision. I only brought it up as a thought experiment because I was interested in hearing rayiner's opinion on that.
- rhino369 12y agoThe Scotus opinion didn't really differentiate between live and time-shifted transmission. It found that Aereo didn't even have the right to transmit at all. The issue of time-shifting then became unimportant. I'm not sure how SCOTUS would come out if it had seen Cablevision, but I think there is clear room for differentiation. I think you can say that time-shifting is not rebroadcast without allowing Aereo. Aereo went a step further and said well we'll rent you an antenna. That's really the part that didn't fly with SCOTUS. At least that is how I'd argue it.