Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aereo Ruling Could Impact Pandora

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the spread-the-love dept.

Television 107

itwbennett writes "Aereo's court battles are far from over, to be sure, but the ruling earlier this month that the TV streaming service doesn't violate copyright laws must have the folks at music streaming service Pandora shaking their heads, wondering why they're still paying royalties that currently consume more than half their revenues. The implications of Aereo's business model are far-reaching and may ultimately 'be resolved by Congress, just as it did when cable first came on the scene, by passing legislation to redefine a public performance,' writes broadcast industry attorney David Oxenford."

cancel ×

107 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542695)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542771)

Dear Hired Shill,

At Slashdot, we understand that making a business front to promote community created/managed software can indeed incur business expenses. That is not in dispute.

We would like you to respect that this is a news aggregation site, and that your endorsement message for philanthropic donations is neither on topic, nor proper for this venue under nearly all circumstances. We understand that a disproportionate percentage of our readers make use of the linux kernel in many varied distros for both personal and commercial use, and do so daily. This does not in any fashion suggest that we would like to be spammed with off topic requests for funding. If your project requires funding, and you wish to use slashdot as a platform to get exposure, the comments sections of unrelated posts are NOT the appropriate mechanism to accomplish this task.

Instead, please consider submitting an article linking to your website, and some information about what your organization does for the linux community, in order to justify asking for charitable donations from the users of that community, and provide some tangible goals you wish to accomplish with said donations. You will find a much better welcome than the -1 score your post currently enjoys.

Again, please keep commentary on topic to the featured report, and related topics, and avoid posting advertisments to the comments section.

Thank you.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543155)

You assume that Slashdot is a site of worthy of a paid shrill, fact is neither tech companies or otherwise care what Slashdot thinks. This site isn't even on their radar.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#43547851)

Sure it is. A link to one of those "reputation management firms" (or whatever those shill scumbags call themselves) made the rounds awhile back mentioning slashdot and reddit by name.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1, Offtopic)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43542841)

Is it Dieter or Dietrich?

BTW, I notice your site has only one writer.

I'm available--get in touch with my agent.

But if you're talking anything less than €100000 a year, don't bother. Also, I get all Swedish and Australian legal holidays, and 6 weeks paid vacation per annum.

Re: http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542981)

Tl;dr.

Fuck off asshole.

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545275)

Linux sucks, fag.

typical (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542705)

FIRST!

Playing back a recording (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43542719)

It should never be considered a "public performance".. Not until a video of me fixing a toilet actually fixes a toilet.

Re:Playing back a recording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542777)

So writers should have to read you a bedtime story or it's just letters on a screen to you?

Re:Playing back a recording (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43542801)

I read the words on the paper, silently, and to myself.
Private performance.

I read the words aloud in my own home. The cats look at me like I am insane. (Because I probably am for reading aloud to them to begin with, since they can't comprehend the words I am speaking anyway.)
Private performance.

I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book.
Private performance.

I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading.
Public performance.

One of these things is not like the others.
This isn't hard.

Re:Playing back a recording (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43543165)

This isn't hard.

I disagree. People are surprised to learn that showing a movie to a bunch of school kids is "a performance". People violate the law all the time and don't even realize it, because you have to be an expert to learn all of the intricacies of copyright law. I really don't understand why we apply it to non-commercial use.

Re:Playing back a recording (4, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#43543197)

Yeah. Because it's for educational purposes, which is specifically exempted from copyright.

Re:Playing back a recording (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43543211)

Good. Now define "educational".

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | about a year ago | (#43546061)

Good. Now define "educational".

Easy. Anything done by a government-run school. The government doesn't want to get sued for every stupid copyright violation, so it exempted itself, just as it always does with shitty laws.

By way of example, the government is about to exempt itself from Obamacare [politico.com] .

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43547539)

By way of example, the government is about to exempt itself from Obamacare

You know, one of the first things we need to insist upon, is congress passing laws specifically saying they MUST be subject to the same laws as the rest of the populace they represent. This shit has to STOP.

If they had to deal with the Social Security system, and the medical system, etc...that they force down our throats, they might be a little more thoughtful before pushing crap legislature through.

Re:Playing back a recording (5, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43543213)

By the way, here's a 5-part series [educationworld.com] on how simple copyright is in education.

Re:Playing back a recording (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543561)

but how do I know that I have permission from the copyright holders to view the video?

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543797)

Sincerely, after reading the TOC and finding this:

Part 2: Is Fair Use a License to Steal?

I stopped reading any further.

Fair Use is NOT a License to Steal. Fair Use is a sick joke remembering us that our freedom to interchange knowdlege [aka learning] (and mix it, change it, adapt it, improve it, etc.) has been sold to private companies so much that it has to be preserved from dissapearing.

Fair use is a consequence of copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544303)

Copyrights do not control several forms of copying since they do not impinge on the rights copyright is intended to protect. Fair use is neither a gap, defense or abridgement of copyright, they are acts that copyright does not cover.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

bkaul01 (619795) | about a year ago | (#43549367)

Copyright doesn't restrict dissemination of information/knowledge. It restricts outright copying of others' work without their permission. You can still paraphrase and re-explain the information contained therein all you like. You just have to do it yourself, in your own words/tones/images/whatever.

Re:Playing back a recording (2)

The Real Andrew (321273) | about a year ago | (#43544037)

Am I going to be violating copyright law if I watch it?

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544739)

Do you plan to learn anything from it?

Re:Playing back a recording (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43546167)

You can read it. You can set up a lab full of computers and instruct all of the students to read it individually. But throw that puppy on an overhead, and it's a "performance".

Without government rules like this, how could commerce even function?

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

whoop (194) | about a year ago | (#43546435)

Do two eyes watching it count as a public performance?

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

Hobadee (787558) | about a year ago | (#43548969)

Everyone quotes "education" as a copyright exemption, but the education exemption is actually quite narrow. There must be NO other (non-copyrighted) way of showing/demonstrating what you are using, and you must use the LEAST amount of it possible to successfully show/demonstrate what you are teaching.

If you are teaching music, you can't just start playing every album ever made and say "it's education, it's exempt!" You can't even play an entire song and say "did you hear that cord progression at the beginning?". What you CAN do is play the part of the song with said progression. If you were teaching about song structure, then you could use the whole song. Both of these examples still assume there was no other source of non-copyrighted work you could have used instead.

Re:Playing back a recording (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43543375)

The intention was that what the law says is public, vs private, is not what the general public has in mind for that. The added joy of people unknowingly violating that law just underscores this fact, and only serves to show that the definitions used for legal applications are byzantine, and purposefully convoluted to serve a specific economic agenda.

Personally, I feel that the legal system is not supposed to be used in such a fashion; [to create specific legal categories of infringement, specifically to monetize clearly non-economic, and private activities via renumeration of court awarded fees and judgements.]

To me, such activities say two things:

1) There is an influential demographic that is suffering from an entitlement complex, who feels they are entitled to financial compensation for non-economic uses of things they have created, or any time a person other than their sublicensed client in any way accessess that intellectual property. Eg, they think they should be paid if I lend a book to a friend, and other stupid things.

2) this demographic has paid substantial sums of money to cuddle up with politicians, for the express purposes of having these definitions and categories of infringement, and accepted methods of renumeration drafted and signed into law.

I am apt to point out that a supreme court judge asserted that just because one has enjoyed a living performing a certain service for a time, does not mean that the courts are compelled to ensure their continued profit from that service, nor for the wheels of progress to be halted or reversed. (Paraphrased)

In other words, the interested parties lobbying for this legislation do not actually have a legitimate position from which to frame their demands, and the legal definitions in question should never have been drafted.

Re:Playing back a recording (2)

chihowa (366380) | about a year ago | (#43546733)

I am apt to point out that a supreme court judge asserted that just because one has enjoyed a living performing a certain service for a time, does not mean that the courts are compelled to ensure their continued profit from that service, nor for the wheels of progress to be halted or reversed. (Paraphrased)

I know Heinlein said that*, but it sounds extremely out of character for a Supreme Court Justice. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything good, which Justice said that?

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

Heinlein, Life-line (1939)

public school vs private home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543637)

see the two words that are differant

PUBLIC and private
that's why the ruling happened....
its ME PRIVATELY vs a bunch of kids in a public system.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#43543939)

-- People are surprised to learn that showing a movie to a bunch of school kids is "a performance".

No they aren't surprised at all. About playing movies in classrooms, I've heard many teachers say: "I don't know why we're not being sued." They just go along with it because it's so wide-spread that they assume it must be legal somehow, or at least significantly under the radar. It seems to be legally safe, because it's both non-profit, and educational, but those involved aren't so brainless as you make them out to be.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43546189)

I didn't say "teachers". I would expect teachers to be much more savvy about copyright in the classroom than the population at large. I'd be surprised if you could make it through a masters in education without the topic coming up at least a few times.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546883)

After seeing what you learn about copyright in a M.Ed. program, you are sadly mistaken. Considering copyright lawyers are confused about what is allowed and what isn't, imagine what the educators are like. I left that class more confused then when I went in. The result is that you get teachers that are too terrified to use anything or they just go "fuck it" and do whatever they want because, in the end, they are the experts as to what is educational and what isn't.

Re:Playing back a recording (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43544689)

When "people violate a law all the time and don't even realize it" it's called "untenable" and the law should be struck down.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#43547917)

"Untenable" is a concept that doesn't appear to exist where "justice" is a private industry that is "too big to fail."

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year ago | (#43543239)

You left a few out, which could be relevant to the case at hand:

I read aloud in front of a microphone connected to an FM transmitter, while hundreds of people listen to their radios tuned to the frequency my FM transmitter is broadcasting on.

I read aloud in front of a microphone connected to a PC which is streaming the audio from that microphone over the internet, while hundreds of people in their respective private rooms around the world connect to that stream and listen in.

OR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543649)

you have to register to a private website and listen to something privately in your home....

ya streaming is them to me ....
unless they have no logins and no privacy and such in which case then i'd say it shold apply like PUBLIC radio
THe second you add a MY ACCOUNT and LOGIN its private....you cant access my account ( legally) thus its private.

Re:OR (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year ago | (#43545045)

Performances in venues where you have to buy a ticket (or otherwise register) and pass through security are still public performances.

Re:Playing back a recording (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43543259)

I watch broadcast tv
Private performance.

I record broadcast tv to my computer and play it back later
Private performance.

I record broadcast tv to my computer and stream it to a computer/tablet/phone over the internet
Private performance

I rent an antenna, a hard drive, and bandwidth from a 3rd party and record broadcast tv onto the hard drive so that I can play it back over the internet.
*Second Circuit Court says: Private performance.

Pandora is wondering why this can't apply to them as well.
*The decision is limited to NY, Vermont, and Connecticut.

Re:Playing back a recording (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year ago | (#43543267)

I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book.
Private performance.

I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading.
Public performance.

Agreed. Of course, there's a pretty big gap between your 3 year-old niece and hundreds of people who paid to attend or were otherwise asked to attend.

Take the numbers, for example. If I read aloud to 1 person who paid me to read it, is it a public performance? What if I'm paid to do other things. Suppose I'm a nurse for an elderly person and I'm paid to help him out in the bathroom, cook meals, and read him books? He's paying me, I'm making money from reading him books, but it's only one other person.

What if it's two people--say a husband and wife? How about if it's 32 people in a nursing home and I'm paid to read to them in a group, as well as mop the floors and teach advanced basket-weaving? Those people also pay the nursing home for such things, as well as room and board and medical care.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year ago | (#43543585)

Private. All of them.

An unpublicized reading or performance is a private performance (unpublicized meaning by definition not made known to the public). If the nursing home had advertised the performance using the title of the performed work in any way, as opposed to having "reading time" or "music time" on a schedule, then they would fall uner public performance guidelines.

If you don't make the performance of the specific work known to the public then it is a private performance.

Re:Playing back a recording (2)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year ago | (#43544853)

Private. All of them.

An unpublicized reading or performance is a private performance (unpublicized meaning by definition not made known to the public). If the nursing home had advertised the performance using the title of the performed work in any way, as opposed to having "reading time" or "music time" on a schedule, then they would fall uner public performance guidelines.

If you don't make the performance of the specific work known to the public then it is a private performance.

Personally, I would love to come and live in the country you are writing the laws for...
However according to US law,
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

So the fact that you are not advertising the "performance" is irrelevant. What makes it a public performance is whether it is in a place where members of the public might have a reasonable expectation of being able to go, or whether you are broadcasting it in a way that someone in such a "public" place might reasonably be able to receive that transmission.
Interestingly enough, one of the edge cases in this instance is a party. You sitting with your daughter to watch a Disney film is a private performance. You sitting with your octuplets (8 children born at the same time) is a private performance. You and your sister sitting watching the Disney film, with both your octuplets and her octuplets (2 adults, 16 children) is a private performance. Add a journalist and cameraman from the local newspaper who are there to cover the party, because both sets of octuplets were born on the same day and are now enjoying their second birthday, and where the journo and cameraman happen to be in the room when the film is playing, that is a public performance according to the current interpretation of the rules, even though it is a private party in a private residence, because they happen to be outside the normal circle of social acquaintances of the people at the party.
(I do not have a site link to a case for that, but it happened to my ex-wife and her new husband, just with not quite so many octuplets)

Re:Playing back a recording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545455)

I read aloud to a microphone on a channel being broadcasted to millions of people (just like Pandora playing music).
Public performance.

This isn't hard.. you're right.

Re:Playing back a recording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546151)

Actually, you skirted the real issue so I guess it is that hard... hard for you to understand, that is.

All the poster was suggesting is that watching a recording is not a performance. While the bed time story might be snarky it still avoids the question of the word performance, not public or private. Nor did the OP suggest it had any bearing on the terms of public versus private. In this way you've missed what was really the question by bringing in a third element that had nothing to do with the question at hand. In the circles of logic this is what's known as misdirection. Because of all the chest pounding neckbeards who get mod points around here you were modded up for not understanding the original question.

And people wonder why Slashdot is bleeding off its users like a comet bleeding off its volatiles when it's close to the sun....

Re:Playing back a recording (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43542845)

As a writer, I'm here to inform you that you are a genuine, grade-A doorknob.

Re:Playing back a recording (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542915)

I read the words on the paper, silently, and to myself.
Private performance.

I read the words aloud in my own home. The cats look at me like I am insane. (Because I probably am for reading aloud to them to begin with, since they can't comprehend the words I am speaking anyway.)
Private performance.

I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book.
Private performance.

I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading.
Public performance.

One of these things is not like the others.
This isn't hard dick.

Re:Playing back a recording (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542983)

If you've become a writer and you still think that makes you special... well pot meet kettle.

Re:Playing back a recording (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43543237)

If the fact that--unlike most people who style themselves as such--I have actually been published by big names in the industry (well, okay, not O'Reilly--not yet, at least), have close to a million total print copies sold, make a pretty nice living in one of the world's nicer cities, and still have time to squander on you makes me special...

Well, gee, I will just try very hard to live it down somehow.

and your still a dickhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543657)

all that education and skill at language and YOU DON'T get it...your not writign to enrich society and enhance the public good , your doing it ONLY to gain economic wealth....see what copyright was intended you dolt. YOU wan tot make one thing then be able to sit back the rest of your life sucking trillions ....well sorry you lazy fuck it don't work that way....you should ask the 100,000 whom stole via tax evasion 32 trillion how they did that and go do it, cause thats the only way your gonna get ot be so fucking lazy.

Re:Playing back a recording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544411)

And i'm sure your writing a nice fat check to all the folks that originated the concepts you are writing about. You just wait though with the way that it is headed the relatives of many of histories great thinkers will be sending their lawyers after you soon.

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543631)

and in my front yard in front of the neighbors....ergo PUBLIC

RIAA/MPAA... (0)

RLU486983 (1792220) | about a year ago | (#43542737)

killed every Star!!

Re:RIAA/MPAA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542807)

Polaris was a whore anyway always leaving Kochab in its shadow.

Pandora needs to change technology to win. (5, Interesting)

duckgod (2664193) | about a year ago | (#43542763)

If Pandora buys a cd(digital music would probably have to wait for another legal victory) and only streams it out to 1 user at a time then I could see this ruling helping Pandora. I doubt this is close to the black magic media distribution that Pandora employs currently. Math is hard but I am thinking it would take a while for this system to be more profitable then the current licensing model.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (2)

sheddd (592499) | about a year ago | (#43542887)

mmm no... If this ruling stands, all Pandora needs to do is copy Aereo... rent antennas to pandora users for $x/year, and allow them to play live radio or previously recorded live radio, and save their massive licensing expenses.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (3, Insightful)

Jheaden (169061) | about a year ago | (#43542967)

Except that Pandora doesn't exactly stream live radio. They generate content streams customized to the listener (or in the case of the genre "stations" specific to that genre). So yeah the closest Pandora could get would be a few million cds and some sort of switching mechanism for the stream.

They pay for access to the content, plus a per play fee. Really don't see how the ruling could be in any way applied to Pandora

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (3, Interesting)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43543137)

Or a $20 50mW FM transmitter, a stripped bit of wire to use as an antenna, and a faraday cage for each user's personal "station". That would put them pretty much exactly where aero is. There are no licensing requirements for FM stations that broadcast under 200 feet in the US and the faraday cage could drop the broadcast range to milimeters. They could even have the transmit/receive antennas on the same circuit board.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543435)

There are no FCC spectrum licensing requirements. (Although there is still FCC certification). The problem is then you must pay the content owners a fee for each 'station'. While this fee is much less than the internet radio fee you need to pay it for each stream and that would get expensive quickly. Not to mention the hardware cost, energy cost of running millions of transmitters, a huge warehouse to store it all, and technitions to keep it all running.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43546721)

Yes, FM stations that broadcast over 200 feet have to be licensed. The cheapest way to go beyond unlicensed use is LPFM but it's rather quirky in its requirements, wouldn't be suitable, and would be overpowered by 1000x or more. Using frequencies outside the traditional FM range is another story entirely though.

Power draw would also not be an issue. A transmitter and receiver on the same circuit board could get away with power of under 1mW. Possibly significantly below 1mW in a faraday cage.

As to cost, I could build a transmitter/receiver board for roughly $10 in parts from Radio Shack. I assume they could get a much better deal on the scale we're talking. They could also probably manage at least a hundred of them on a PCB the size of a sheet of paper.

Finally no, content owners get jack and shit from radio play on terrestrial radio stations. They in fact have things set up to pay the stations to play their music, though through a somewhat indirect method.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (3, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43543449)

Or a $20 50mW FM transmitter, a stripped bit of wire to use as an antenna, and a faraday cage for each user's personal "station". That would put them pretty much exactly where aero is.

Not even close. Aereo is merely relaying an existing signal. Pandora is originating the signal.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

Luciano Moretti (2887109) | about a year ago | (#43545523)

Pandora pays exorbitant license rates above and beyond that paid by actual FM radio broadcasters.

It may be worth it to implement a system where they transmit a custom "Radio station" and then receive it via an antenna like Aereo just to pay the radio license fees and not the streaming license fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radio#US_royalty_controversy

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43546755)

FM radio broadcasters pay zero in license rates. They're in fact paid by a middleman organization that I forget the name of that works for the labels to play the labels' music.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#43547245)

RE: Pandora pays exorbitant license rates above and beyond that paid by actual FM radio broadcasters.

That's because the RIAA wants to kill competition.

If the RIAA owned Pandora, these fees would magically disappear.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43546763)

As are most every other terrestrial radio station. Non-issue.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (3, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#43545201)

It wasn't CDs, but rather DVDs, but that is essentially what Zediva tried with individual DVDs and players [wikipedia.org] . It ultimately didn't work out for them in the end, although I don't believe that there was final verdict that said what they were attempting to do was illegal. If another company wanted to try the legal challenge, they better have VERY deep pockets.

New age, new definitions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546159)

I don't believe that there was final verdict that said what they were attempting to do was illegal

il-le-gal (adj.) Too expensive for you to defend in court.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#43543249)

Sure, as long as Pandora rebroadcasts live radio, commercials and all, and has one FM tuner for each customer.

Re: Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

sheddd (592499) | about a year ago | (#43543283)

I think as law currently stands they could record the broadcasts and give the users a nifty tool that skips over the commercials, and generally behaves as pandora does today. Maybe they need to make sure the song they think you want to listen to has actually been broadcasted since you subscribed to them.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

ravenscar (1662985) | about a year ago | (#43548143)

What would be the point? I can already stream live radio from a vast number of stations from all over legally and with no cost. Heck, a fair number of stations even allow you to stream recorded broadcasts for nothing.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542933)

Well, that's an imprecise analogy to what Aereo does. Aereo exploits a "free" (i.e. advertising-supported) broadcast stream meant for local consumption to provide the content in that stream to other users, so each additional user costs them the hardware cost to receive that stream, but not any additional cost for content -- the correct analogy would be if Pandora played back local FM radio by allocating one FM radio to each user (and forewent the principle advantages Pandora has over your local FM stations in the first place).

Conversely, the approach you describe, which I agree would make Pandora unprofitable, is analogous to a service which provides streaming movies by buying many DVDs and streaming one to each user -- which might actually be profitable for DVDs, because more people watch a single DVD straight through, whereas you have to buy a whole album even thought people listen to one track at a time; this granularity mismatch increases the amount you have to buy.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543187)

the correct analogy would be if Pandora played back local FM radio by allocating one FM radio to each user (and forewent the principle advantages Pandora has over your local FM stations in the first place).

It's worse than that. It's not uncommon for local radio stations to have internet channels. So would you pay Pandora for a service that you can get for free?

Re: Pandora needs to change technology to win. (4, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year ago | (#43542985)

No, that would still be public performance. It's defined in the Copyright Act, and includes performances to only one person at a time:

To perform or display a work âoepubliclyâ meansâ"
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Instead there'd have to buy one CD per user who wanted to listen.

They could save momey by renting them to users. Except that you can't rent music CDs as a rule due to an exception to first sale ( 17 USC 109 (b)(1)(a) ), they might need to create a complicated system of selling and repurchasing discs on demand which would probably not convince a court that it was something other than rental.

Re: Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

dead_user (1989356) | about a year ago | (#43543281)

We have legal places for this. They're called libraries.

Re: Pandora needs to change technology to win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545811)

According to the ASCAP guy that showed up at our wine bar, as long as we only played music on 2 speakers, we did not need to pay any royalties.
 

Re: Pandora needs to change technology to win. (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year ago | (#43550983)

If you were playing the radio, rather than prerecorded music, it's likely he was saying that you fell under the home style exception. Or perhaps ASCAP has some circumstances where they won't extort money out of people, but I have a hard time imagining it.

Music videos (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43542987)

Do the same royalties apply to music videos? If not, why doesn't Pandora stream low quality video/high quality audio for the songs it can to cut down on costs.

Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543051)

Aereo's lawyers deserve a pat on the back

Re:Lawyers (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year ago | (#43547025)

Hmm, I tend to believe lawyers only need a pat on the back when you are wielding a dagger.

aereo may need to add forced Regional locks if (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43543071)

aereo may need to add forced Regional locks if they don't want to get sued the by the NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL, ESPN / ABC and others.

Re:aereo may need to add forced Regional locks if (1)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about a year ago | (#43543147)

Is this Aero service not limited to the local market where the broadcast station might be received? If so, are these local market not blacked out by the sports organizations? Can they broadcast their "antenna" signal from a local area to the entire Internet? Since broadcast TV depends on advertising, should the broadcasters not be happy to get more eyeballs to advertise to?

Re:aereo may need to add forced Regional locks if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543405)

They can't track, nor target those ads (what good does it do to advertise a regional business far outside their region of operation, especially if they don't even know it is being done?

Not that I have a problem with this, since it costs the broadcasters nothing and I don't see how the content creators lose anything, either, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Re:aereo may need to add forced Regional locks if (2)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | about a year ago | (#43546231)

Aereo only takes customers who live in the greater NYC area. Yes, if you are a customer you can access your account from anywhere in the world, but you have reside somewhere that you could conceivably record the same content with an antenna and stream it to yourself. There are other products on the market now that let you do that. Aereo just lets consumers outsources the technology. I expect that as Aereo expands to more cities they will only allow customers to record and stream content from their local stations.

Uh, why? (4, Insightful)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#43543243)

What Pandora does is completely different. Aereo is rebroadcasting a live signal. Pandora is replaying a recorded song any number of times to any number of people. Aereo has an antenna for each subscriber. How in the world is this even remotely comparable?

Re:Uh, why? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43543429)

Right - Pandora is in control of the content; Aereo is just transmitting a signal somebody else controls over the Internet. If Pandora were re-transmitting an FM station from some market instead of choosing the songs .... wait, how did this ever go from a lame draft on somebody's blog to a Slashdot story?

Re:Uh, why? (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year ago | (#43545441)

I would also add that it is a public, free broadcast. Pandora is picking and chosing the content they broadcast.

Re:Uh, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545921)

Because Aereo also allows time shifting the recording. So I think the original author has a valid point. So lets say I have the array of N antennas, and I pick up a song played by a public station. Do I now have N performances of the song that I can time shift out for free?
Maybe the quality isn't so great so I explicitly create a High Quality Audio radio station (as was suggested) and I pay the fees (or don't depending on the size/law) for a single broadcast (which again are picked up by my antenna array) Do I again have N performances of the song available? At this point if you are creating your own radio station, you probably don't even need to time shift.

Re:Uh, why? (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about a year ago | (#43547699)

Because Aereo also allows time shifting the recording. So I think the original author has a valid point. So lets say I have the array of N antennas, and I pick up a song played by a public station. Do I now have N performances of the song that I can time shift out for free? Maybe the quality isn't so great so I explicitly create a High Quality Audio radio station (as was suggested) and I pay the fees (or don't depending on the size/law) for a single broadcast (which again are picked up by my antenna array) Do I again have N performances of the song available? At this point if you are creating your own radio station, you probably don't even need to time shift.

It has been policy and (I believe law) that anything transmitted OTA for Radio and TV since its inception is considered a public broadcast when done by the licensed stataions. So what Aero is doing for TV could equally be done for Radio. And the time-shifting argument doesn't apply as VCR/DVR issues have already been resolved and its ultimately no different.

The result may be that more will leave the public OTA TV and Radio services - whether groups like ABC, CBS, FOX, etc want to take their media to regulated technologies only (e.g. Cable, Internet, etc.) where they have more control and fewer requirements, or whether groups like Disney, NASCAR, NFL, etc will refuse to license their stuff to the OTA service providers in favor of doing to so to service providers on controlled mediums - is yet to be seen. But that is the only remedy to content producers - changing whom the license their works to so that it never goes OTA in the public spectrums to start with. (E.g. Sat-TV and Sat-Radio don't have those requirements as they are not part of the public OTA spectrums.)

Re:Uh, why? (1)

Avalon73 (215477) | about a year ago | (#43546679)

What Aereo is doing is not even rebroadcasting, which would apparently be the word that the broadcast industry is trying to redefine. It's basically the same as having an antenna, DVR and Slingbox at your home, except it's not at your home and there are a lot of them under one roof.

Libraries should take advantage as well (1)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about a year ago | (#43543433)

A library I used to frequent kept DVDs on the shelves for 3-day checkout. The selection was mostly landmark films, classics, and historic pieces. I wonder what the law would be if they instead loaned out via streaming (DVDs or Blu-Rays). Instead of a 2-3 day checkout window, they were digitally transported for up to 4 hours (automatically "checked in" when you exit the streaming system or finish the work).

About 10 years back, there was a big uproar that libraries wanted to do similar with regular print books, that is, full conversion to a digital, searchable copy capable of being checked out online. With reference, rare, and similar non-loanable books this would be especially useful to them. The added bonus they saw was less wear and tear on the books along with being able to serve more of the public by reducing check-out windows or making it easier to check stuff in sooner. The IP holders killed the idea dead as quick as possible of course.

The cheap shot the libraries should take now is the "thermonuclear green option". Move the conversation to how much greener it would be if people didn't have to drive their Excursions (much less a Prius) as frequently to the library. Add in all of the carbon footprint chatter about a/c and heating for people constantly coming and going. Then there is going back to the wear and tear. (though frankly I have never heard a good justification for why you ever need to pay for a damaged replacement of something bought under copyright if you a) own a copyright type license and b) the copyright content is the valuable portion)

<trollface>IP holders, why you kill more trees???</trollface>

Re:Libraries should take advantage as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543615)

I agree. Think of saving the Canadian forests! Allow digital freedom!

Re:Libraries should take advantage as well (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#43545117)

Actually, some libraries are renting electronic versions of books. My wife will take out Kindle books via our local library and the New York Public Library. (You just need to be a New York resident, no need to live in New York City to sign up.) It goes through Amazon.com and it has DRM, of course, but it's still electronic rentals. She also takes out audio books that she can play on an iPod or other device.

why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543445)

This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.

Slashdot reaches a new cretinous low (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43543581)

Broadcasters receive a licence on the condition that they make every effort to ensure as many people in the licensed area can receive the signal. This is why those that rebroadcast the broadcast signal are NOT infringing copyright. What the hell does this have to do with the service offered by Pandora? How the hell are they even remotely the same thing?

A broadcaster already agrees to handle and pay for copyright material on behalf of the viewer/listener. While Pandora is not a 'broadcaster' in the legal sense of the word, Pandora is in the same position as any broadcaster when it comes to having responsibilities for paying for the rights to media it uses. Honestly, just how thick do you have to be not to get this?

Those that act as signal boosters or rebroadcasters of a broadcast signal are NOT the originators of the channel content. Just how thick do you have to be to not get this?

Learn what broadcast means, for god's sake. Then understand why broadcasters don't have a leg to stand on when they complain about third parties working to boost the effectiveness of the original act of broadcasting. No-one is forced to take a broadcasting licence. No-one is forced to accept the responsibilities that come with being a broadcaster. You are free to offer a subscription service instead. But whether you are a broadcaster or a subscription service, you still have to pay for the content you use on your channel.

Just because a person is a lawyer doesn't mean he or she is not as thick as a brick. Plenty of these clowns sailed through law school on Mommy's or Daddy's money, and had the family background to always have their grades adjusted upwards. They can have successful careers by offering dishonest or very very very stupid business people hope that their cretinous misunderstandings about the law can be successfully argued in court. The end result, of course, is a bad lawyer very much richer, and a bunch of disappointed business people.

Micro aerials... MMm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544227)

Is it me, or does anyone else think they have some big shared aerials somewhere and the whole micro aerial thing is a great con to get around the copyright issues? I struggle to get a good signal with a big aerial never mind surrounding it by thousands of others in a metal box.

Redefining "public performance" (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | about a year ago | (#43544313)

You can bet that the MAFIAA is hard at work writing legislation for their wholly owned subsidiary, the US Congress, to rubberstamp for them to redefine "public performance" to be pretty much anything they can charge royalties for.

Re:Redefining "public performance" (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about a year ago | (#43548533)

You can bet that the MAFIAA is hard at work writing legislation for their wholly owned subsidiary, the US Congress...

This is a ridiculous notion, to say that the US Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA and MPAA. ...they begrudgingly share ownership with Monsanto, BP, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, Comcast, and General Motors.

GUIs and MMOs?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544607)

What has the choice of windows 'dressing' got to do with my Warcraft Toon? I don't get it?

Pandora is dumb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545001)

They pay royalties because they have to. If they set something up where people rented an antenna and their service provided streaming of the radio channels caught on said antenna, they wouldn't have to pay royalties.

Apples and oranges here.

Tuuuu (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43546817)

Aero redirects others' signals and is just a fancy antenna. Pandora is 1000 little Internet radio stations, and should pay royalties like any other.

There is no comparison. In the former, the stations pay the royalties. In the latter, the station, Pandora, does, too.

Tune In Radio isn't even like either -- it is just a finder and facilitator of broadcast radio stations' newfangled Intertubes feeds.

There's a business opportunity for COLO's here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43546835)

I see server hosting offers all the time in the $25-$50 a month range from various hosting services. All these companies need to do is also offer to attach a USB TV device to the server and wire up a big antenna to run to all of these servers. Let people rent their own server with their own antenna and avoid any ambiguity about retransmission of a public performance. My server, my transmission to do what I want with!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>