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!

Bye Bye Aereo, For Now

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the boston-strangler-argument-sometimes-wins dept.

Television 93

An anonymous reader writes It didn't take long for Aereo to deal with the realities of the U.S. Supreme Court decision. As of 11:30am EDT today Aereo is suspending operations while they go back to U.S. District Court. In order to keep good will with customers during this time, they are refunding the last month's payment for service. curtwoodward (2147628) writes to point out that the decision which has shut down Aereo for now doesn't mean doom for other cloud services: Don't listen to the trolls---the Supremes were very clear that their ruling only applied to Aereo's livestream and things that look just like it. iCloud, Dropbox and friends are fine.

cancel ×

93 comments

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

Listen to the trolls (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340685)

The Supremes weren't as clear as they wanted, hence the lawsuit by Fox against Dish over Hopper [arstechnica.com] the next day.

Re:Listen to the trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340803)

And they will most surely lose... It didn't overturn the cablevision decision.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47341283)

And they will most surely lose... It didn't overturn the cablevision decision.

That doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS leaves any ambiguity at all, industries will use it to file frivolous lawsuits against their competitors. They may even get idiotic rulings from lower courts if they get lucky and this will make its way back up to SCOTUS again.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 months ago | (#47341345)

...I seem to recall making that same remark myself in response to the first Aereo message posted here.

Some guy's black robe won't magically prevent everyone from trying to get that rule applied in the lower courts. It will have to be litigated back up to the SCOTUS before 9 guys can declare that "sorry, it doesn't apply to you". Although even that's not assured. By the time it gets back up to the SCOTUS, it could be different guys or case could just come out different.

Re:Listen to the trolls (2)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47341865)

The problem with ignoring the trolls, in this case? They understand the issues involved far, far better than the geriatric asshats on the USSC.

I didn't use Aereo, so have no skin in this game. But they effectively rented an antenna to people. Not a shared antenna, a private, one-to-one, real live antenna.

Nevermind Dropbox and the like - This ruling sets a much darker precedent than merely whether or not you can store data you don't strictly "own" in the cloud. Although those seven uselessly-obsolete bastards might not realize it, they have effectively outlawed your neighbor letting you stick your DirectTV dish on his roof because he has a better unobstructed Southern view.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 3 months ago | (#47341891)

Only if DirectTV has an issue with it or maybe if your neighbor is an asshole and charges you for it and is also doing this for every other household in the country.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47341911)

Only if DirectTV has an issue with it or maybe if your neighbor is an asshole and charges you for it and is also doing this for every other household in the country.

DirectTV should have zero say in the matter. And whether my neighbor lets just me, or a million people do the same, how does that materially differ? He has let people use his rooftop to mount an antenna, nothing more, nothing less.

And there you see the real problem - If it makes sense to allow one person to do it, you can't really discriminate against a million people doing it.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#47343527)

DirectTV should have zero say in the matter. And whether my neighbor lets just me, or a million people do the same, how does that materially differ?

It matters, because THIS is what the court is relying on, in effect.

They are totally ignoring all aspects of the technological arrangement, including the fact that a dedicated antenna is being rented out.

And saying.. essentially... if the end-user experience --- the end result -- is the same as with a CATV network, or if your business look like a CATV provider, then you are automatically a cable TV provider..., and therefore, you "perform" the work within the meaning if the law.

And this performance is deemed to be a public performance, because, the court chooses to ignore any underlying characteristics of the technology -- and look only at what the end result is, which is, that through all the transmissions made by your service, you are broadcasting each program to numerous people who have selected it.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 3 months ago | (#47348097)

Exactly, I was only trying to point out that his analogy was not really very close to the actual case at hand.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#47343983)

And there you see the real problem - If it makes sense to allow one person to do it, you can't really discriminate against a million people doing it.

One person walking across a grassy field is fine. A million people walking across the same field leaves only trampled desolation.

Welcome to real world, where scale matters.

Re:Listen to the trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342817)

I suspect the actual issue is that a DirecTV installer would not be willing to risk doing an installation on someone else's property. But you're not required to have DirecTV do the installation. You can buy the dish, receiver, multiswitch, and cable and do the installation yourself, or pay someone to do it. Then you just have to call DirecTv to activate your service, and they will not ask you where the dish is located.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 months ago | (#47342597)

I didn't use Aereo

Neither do I, in fact I had to read this far down the comments to figure out what the hell it was, no hints in the summary.

Talk about being CLUELESS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342833)

They weren't renting an antenna. They were distributing copyrighted programing without paying for it.

Only morons who don't even spend 3 secs looking at the product would claim that it was a rental of an antenna.

What they were doing was recording OTA programming and selling it under the disguise that it was a rental of an antenna.

Re:Talk about being CLUELESS (1)

paiute (550198) | about 3 months ago | (#47342893)

They weren't renting an antenna.

You are correct, except that was exactly what they were doing.

Re:Listen to the trolls (1)

Shirley Marquez (1753714) | about 3 months ago | (#47345515)

The Hopper case is a bit different because it involves equipment that is clearly customer-controlled. No telling what this court will do, but Hopper is not a pure cloud play.

Did anyone seriously... (2)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 3 months ago | (#47340687)

...think that was ever going to last? C'mon now... really?

From CEO/Founder Chet Kanojia (4, Informative)

djupedal (584558) | about 3 months ago | (#47340691)

A Letter to Our Consumers: Standing Together for Innovation, Progress and Technology - An Update on Aereo

"The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress." --Charles Kettering, inventor, entrepreneur, innovator & philanthropist

A little over three years ago, our team embarked on a journey to improve the consumer television experience, using technology to create a smart, cloud-based television antenna consumers could use to access live over the air broadcast television.

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision in favor of Aereo, dealing a massive setback to consumers.

As a result of that decision, our case has been returned to the lower Court. We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps. You will be able to access your cloud-based antenna and DVR only until 11:30 a.m. ET today. All of our users will be refunded their last paid month. If you have questions about your account, please email support@aereo.com or tweet us @AereoSupport.

The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television or in the cloud.

On behalf of the entire team at Aereo, thank you for the outpouring of support. It has been staggering and we are so grateful for your emails, Tweets and Facebook posts. Keep your voices loud and sign up for updates at ProtectMyAntenna.org - our journey is far from done.

Re:From CEO/Founder Chet Kanojia (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#47343443)

The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home,

The spectrum may be public, but the public does not own the data in the spectrum, (just as roads may be public, but the public don't own the cars on the roads).

A little over three years ago, our team embarked on a journey to improve the consumer television experience, using technology to create a smart, cloud-based television antenna consumers could use to access live over the air broadcast television.

Why didn't you obtain retransmission rights for the copyrighted content? Was it to save your company a lot of money?

Re:From CEO/Founder Chet Kanojia (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#47343997)

The spectrum may be public, but the public does not own the data in the spectrum, (just as roads may be public, but the public don't own the cars on the roads).

No one owns data. Someone might have copyright on it, which may or may not be something other people should care about. I'm inclined to think they shouldn't, because copyright lobby has broken the bargain (limited-time incentive to expand the public domain) and it's actively hindering production of culture in digital era.

Re:From CEO/Founder Chet Kanojia (1)

Shirley Marquez (1753714) | about 3 months ago | (#47345525)

It's to make the company possible at all. The broadcast industry clearly doesn't want Aereo to exist, so the probability that they would have offered retransmission rights at non-ruinous rates is nil.

Re: From CEO/Founder Chet Kanojia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347597)

I think the rebroadcast law is wrong. Why should anyone have to pay to carry content you are giving everyone for free anyway? Why can't a building have a common antenna with in-apartment feeds instead of a hundred antennas? This does not make sense.

They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1, Informative)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#47340743)

but they tried to use an loop hole to get out of paying the fees to the OTA channels for the rights to retransmit.

Dish, directv, TWC, Comcast, WOW and others likely would of done the same if Aereo won to cut there fees.

Now Aereo can stay around and do the same thing if they pay the fees.

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (3, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 3 months ago | (#47340821)

The charges that OTA channels get to charge cable companies a purely a protection racket. THAT is what should have been made illegal, not Aereo!

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47340933)

The charges that OTA channels get to charge cable companies a purely a protection racket. THAT is what should have been made illegal, not Aereo!

Take it up with Congress. It's not the job of the Supreme Court to nullify lousy laws unless they fail to pass Constitutional Muster. The Cable Act is Congress exercising its power to regulate interstate commerce, so what exactly do you wish the nine to do about it?

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#47343451)

The charges that OTA channels get to charge cable companies a purely a protection racket. THAT is what should have been made illegal, not Aereo!

How, so? The content is a product and the cable companies profit from that product, and should therefore pay the OTA broadcasters for its use.

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#47343539)

The content is a product and the cable companies profit from that product, and should therefore pay the OTA broadcasters for its use.

No.... it's OTA. The content is being distributed freely over the air. The cable companies are profiting from value they add in terms of technical expertise, engineering work, the spending of massive amounts of dollars in capital expense to build and maintain infrastructure.

Some viewers have difficulty receiving the OTA content over the air at the quality they want using their own equipment, or the investment is too much, or they lack the expertise to build large antenna structures and setup gateways to stream their content to themselves over the internet, so they are inclined to subscribe to a service to maintain equipment to receive over the air on their behalf and provide them the technical assistance to receive the freely available content in the manner the end user wants.

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#47343779)

No.... it's OTA. The content is being distributed freely over the air.

So, it's like gpl -- once in the air, it's becomes free to anyone who can read it? Well then, anyone should able to record it and sell DVDs of tv shows too, right?

Some viewers have difficulty receiving the OTA content over the air at the quality they want using their own equipment, or the investment is too much, or they lack the expertise to build large antenna structures and setup gateways to stream their content to themselves over the internet, so they are inclined to subscribe to a service to maintain equipment to receive over the air on their behalf and provide them the technical assistance to receive the freely available content in the manner the end user wants.

So why can't your service provider pay for the content it is rebroadcasting for a profit? Aereo thinks it should be able to profit from somebody else's content, but the content providers should not profit from their own content? The OTA broadcast is only for individual consumption -- rebroadcasting or commercial use requires a new license and fees.

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47344887)

Those poor its companies. If only they could figure out a way to pay the bills with all this content they produce. Maybe someone could figure out a way to produce content that they could litter throughout their entertainment, that someone else might pay for. Like a billboard... But with video.
Maybe with that the OTA companies might be able to make money.

But since they haven't got any other income, I think it's a great idea that they shut down Areo which is only profiting off their content while they just lose money on it.

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

eric_harris_76 (861235) | about 3 months ago | (#47345211)

Two wrongs don't make a right, but very often they make a Supreme Court decision.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 3 months ago | (#47340839)

Why should anyone pay a fee to re-transmit free-to-air TV signals? I understand that cable channels rely on subscription fees to stay in business, but we're talking about the major networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and PBS - that are broadcast across 94% of the United States at no charge.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (5, Informative)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about 3 months ago | (#47340857)

Because there's a law that explicitly says "you need a license to retransmit free-to-air TV signals". I think it's bullshit too and it leads to absurdities like this, but the law is extremely clear. In fact, they wrote the damn thing because there was a company with a centrally-located antenna and a lot of people paid to access its signal over wires. Sound familiar?

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#47342237)

because there was a company with a centrally-located antenna and a lot of people paid to access its signal over wires.

Yes. That's what Community Access TV was originally developed for.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47341021)

Why should anyone pay a fee to re-transmit free-to-air TV signals? I understand that cable channels rely on subscription fees to stay in business, but we're talking about the major networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and PBS - that are broadcast across 94% of the United States at no charge.

Take PBS out of the equation, because they don't get retransmission fees. They're carried under the must-carry doctrine, meaning the cable company has to carry the local PBS station, but in exchange the station doesn't get any direct financial consideration.

Regarding the other networks, Congress gave broadcasters two choices: must-carry [wikipedia.org] or retransmission consent [wikipedia.org] . Most broadcasters have opted for retransmission consent, because they see it as a source of revenue that offsets their declining advertising dollars. The economics of the broadcast business have changed and it's debatable that it could survive without this source of revenue. Actually it's debatable that it will survive at all in the long term, in its current form, even with retransmission revenue. Broadcasters will continue to be squeezed financially, retransmission fees won't plug the gap indefinitely, and their ultimate future is probably one of even more reality TV crap (it's cheap to produce) and re-runs. Quality original content will be pay-to-play, with the exception of PBS, which will probably manage to survive on the goodwill of its benefactors (here's hoping), though even that isn't a guaranteed thing.

As far as why Congress set up this ecosystem, you'd have to ask them. They were trying to fix a lot of problems in the marketplace, MSOs were refusing to carry local channels or re-selling them for profit, which was a problem. As is usually the case, Congress managed to create more problems than they solved, and the legislation was actually passed over GHWB's veto.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47341239)

The economics of the broadcast business have changed and it's debatable that it could survive without this source of revenue.

Everything else is moving toward a 'pay for viewer' model. Netflix and others want access to the last mile? Hand the money over to the ISP. Pretty soon, if you want people to watch your local broadcast crap, pay up or no viewers. The middle ground right now is 'must carry'. Its why we have all those shopping networks and whack-a-doodle Christian channels. Local broadcasters can join that club. Make your money selling vacuum cleaners or indulgences like everyone else.

Aereo was just ahead of its time.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47341445)

Aereo was a leech. They were trying to take OTA signals, for free, and retransmit them for profit. There's no "must carry" analogy here, "must carry" implies that the channels are made available for cost (where I live the CATV provider offers local broadcast channels for next to nothing, $4.95/mo last time I checked), not that the CATV provider is marking them up for profit.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341735)

"must carry" implies that the channels are made available for cost

Exactly wrong. 'Must carry' means CATV providers pay nothing for the content. This is at the option of the broadcaster. If the broadcaster demands compensation, the CATV operator has the option of blacking them out. If the broadcaster offers them for free, the CATV company has no option but to carry them.

CATV provider offers local broadcast channels for next to nothing, $4.95/mo

Don't confuse what the CATV operator charges you, the customer with what the content costs them. Its a shell game and the customers are the suckers.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47341783)

Exactly wrong. 'Must carry' means CATV providers pay nothing for the content. This is at the option of the broadcaster.

Yes, and the broadcaster isn't very apt to agree to that if the CATV provider is marking up the channel, are they? Local broadcast channels are supposed to be made available at or very close to cost, because we decided as a matter of public policy that we wished to keep them in business for all the benefits (real and imagined) provided by them.

In any case, Aereo was trying to profit off the work of others, without offering them any sort of consideration in return. Why don't you try putting up an antenna and reselling the signal to your neighbors for profit. Do you think such behavior would be regarded as legal or acceptable?

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about 3 months ago | (#47342127)

Why don't you try putting up an antenna and reselling the signal to your neighbors for profit. Do you think such behavior would be regarded as legal or acceptable?

It wouldn't be legal, but only because the law that's at issue here was written in order to make that behavior illegal after somebody did precisely that and it was ruled legal by the SCOTUS (in other words, "so we fixed the glitch"). It's all in the decision.

Whether it should be illegal is another question. The law as written leads to absurdities like this Aereo case, but you can think of others. Let's remove the motive of profit here (the law doesn't distinguish anyway). My neighbors were going to put up their own antennas, but we all pooled our money and got a nice one up on the hill behind our lots. Is that illegal? Let's reduce the scope - surely I can put my own antenna on the hill, but I can't put a splitter in it for the one guy next door? I'd do it in my own house for multiple TVs, what makes the property line so different? (The law doesn't have a "households" exception.) Or am I breaking the law by splitting my rooftop antenna among 3 TVs? Are the splitters what makes it illegal? Apparently as they just ruled that Aereo's multiple antenna trick (with no splitters) didn't work.

Basically the law says that putting it on a cable constitutes the creation of a derivative work, but that's just stupid. That's what an antenna *does*.

In any case, Aereo was trying to profit off the work of others

Actually I think they're trying to profit on their own work (transcoding, DVR, storage, streaming, client) but let's move on.

without offering them any sort of consideration in return.

Except further advertising eyeballs? Keep in mind this is stuff the networks are putting a lot of energy into casting as widely as possible, and can be received for free. They're paying for it with advertising, so I'd think more watchers would help them - no? I mean it certainly couldn't hurt; each person using Aereo or whatever could instead just use an antenna and get the same thing, just less convenient. But I'm pretty sure the broadcasters don't call that particular behavior "illegal copyright violation", they call it "marketshare". (Of course without some kind of an agreement, a cableco shouldn't be allowed to substitute their own ads - that would rightly constitute a derivative work)

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 3 months ago | (#47342685)

Many older apartment buildings had a common antenna on the roof for a TV, and a lead in your apartment you could attach to your TV.

I wonder how that would play out in this modern environment, given it was part of your rent, even if not called out explicitly.

I wonder if modern HD TV is handled in a similar way in any apartment buildings, not that most people would use anything but cable anyway.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342861)

Let's remove the motive of profit here (the law doesn't distinguish anyway)

Not strictly true, but okay.

My neighbors were going to put up their own antennas, but we all pooled our money and got a nice one up on the hill behind our lots. Is that illegal?

Depends. Who owns the hill?

Let's reduce the scope - surely I can put my own antenna on the hill, but I can't put a splitter in it for the one guy next door?

If you're not charging him for it, then sure you can.

I'd do it in my own house for multiple TVs, what makes the property line so different? (The law doesn't have a "households" exception.)

The law doesn't need a "households" exception here. The property line also has no particular bearing on anything unless you make it one by controlling access on that basis or if your neighbor is a business and not a residence. You can put your antenna in your neighbor's yard, or share the same hardware. You're able to receive those broadcasts yourself as long as there is no corporate intermediary controlling your access.

Or am I breaking the law by splitting my rooftop antenna among 3 TVs?

No. "Redistributing" content directly to yourself isn't rebroadcasting.

Are the splitters what makes it illegal? Apparently as they just ruled that Aereo's multiple antenna trick (with no splitters) didn't work.

Splitters are irrelevant to the decision, as is the "one antenna per subscriber" trick. Aereo was selling access to broadcast content--you weren't capturing the broadcast yourself and streaming it online. You were picking up Aereo's feed of the channels in exactly the same way as you would be on DirecTV or a community access antenna provider. That makes them a rebroadcaster, a middleman. Those entities are required to pay licensing fees.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 3 months ago | (#47343503)

You can put your antenna in your neighbor's yard, or share the same hardware. You're able to receive those broadcasts yourself as long as there is no corporate intermediary controlling your access.

Where does the "corporate intermediary" show up in the law? Is it still rebroadcasting if the corporation rents/sells me an antenna and a coax cable and that's it?

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 3 months ago | (#47342033)

Or to be more precise, the broadcaster can insist on "must carry" but when they do so, they're forbidden from demanding compensation. They could go without either if they choose, or they could completely (at their option) forbid anybody from retransmitting anything. When they do permit or demand retransmission, they're also allowed to dictate to the cable operator where when and how they're allowed to transmit to.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

paiute (550198) | about 3 months ago | (#47342901)

Aereo was a leech.

Wrong. I could buy an HDTV antenna and wire it and mount it - or I could pay Aereo to send be a signal from my own rented antenna and get exactly the same mix of local broadcast stations. Aereo was a service I was willing to pay for.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

DewDude (537374) | about 3 months ago | (#47341703)

Why did congress set it up? Think about this?

The 1992 Cable Act set up the must-carry; and it's intention was to help get smaller ignored broadcasters on to cable systems with the must-carry provision. The retramission consent was probably foresight. ATSC was working on HDTV standards at that time (which, if you ask me were at least 10 years too early); 8VSB and COFDM were modulation methods looked at. For some odd reason, the FCC adopted 8VSB even though it's technically inferior to COFDM. 8VSB does not handle multi-path very well, if at all. This is a problem just about everywhere, signals bounce. You live in the city, you get signals bouncing off buildings. You live in a rural area; you got signal bouncing off the ground, trees, etc. Why would you use a system that breaks down at the first little reflection?

Retramission fees.

Those in power knew that 8VSB modulation, in the long run; would cause OTA TV to fail. You'd get a small percentage of people who got signal; but people who used to get marginal reception don't get it at all. I used to get locals with an antenna; but with all the trees around my house it's no point. I get great signal levels, sure; the problem is the amount of multipath and signal degradation is so severe it's not usable.

Maybe that's not true...but the fact is; we're using a modulation system that's outright garbage. Majority of people can't get quality reception without expensive antennas or shelling out a lot of money; the day of putting rabbit ears on the TV are largely over. Create a system where people have to switch to a provider, then double-dip on the profits.

The fact is, no one was sure whether it was legal or not...till the networks got involved. Plain and simple..

Up next on the chopping block are going to be multi-room DVRs, Slingbox technology, and probably anything that delivers video to your computer. The judgement was not very clear on an even less clear law; and "past-precedent" will be used to get all kinds of new technology illegal.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 3 months ago | (#47341859)

Up next on the chopping block are going to be multi-room DVRs, Slingbox technology, and probably anything that delivers video to your computer. The judgement was not very clear on an even less clear law; and "past-precedent" will be used to get all kinds of new technology illegal.

What are you talking about? Nobody made Aereo's technology "illegal." The Supreme Court simply said that if they want to keep doing what they're doing, they have to pay licensing fees, just like any cable TV company does, and just like streaming services the license content (like Hulu) do.

Keeping personal copies of over-the-air content to replay for yourself has a long legal history in the courts (going back to VCRs and cassette tapes) -- "private, non-commercial timeshifting in the home" has clearly been an established precedent [wikipedia.org] . It's hard to imagine that idea of recording a VCR tape at home and playing it at home (perhaps on another TV) wouldn't extend to the idea of multi-room DVRs for non-commercial use within your home.

Now, I suppose you could argue about something like Slingbox, since it requires retransmission through the internet. But on the other hand, if the content is kept private and noncommercial, it could still fall under the previous precedent.

Anyhow, the point is that Aereo is a completely different sort of case, since it involved a company making a profit (i.e., commercial gain) off of rebroadcasting content to huge numbers of users. That's very different from transferring content you've recorded privately for yourself to yourself... and the Supreme Court explicitly said the Aereo ruling wasn't meant to be interpreted broadly.

So, while anything's possible, the law is already reasonably clear on such things. No one with half a brain should have thought Aereo could've gotten away with what they're doing under established legal precedent, and no one with half a brain should be concerned that recording and playing a video back for yourself within your own home for noncommercial purposes will be threatened under established legal precedent.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 3 months ago | (#47343517)

When exactly does it become retransmission/rebroadcasting?

1. Neighbor lets you rent antenna on his roof, you and he run a coax cable from it to your TV.

2. Same but more neighbors/antennas.

3. Same but digitally encoded.

4. Same but using internet connections as opposed to a cable between the houses.

5. Same but with a cloud based DVR.

6. Aereo.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47342053)

the day of putting rabbit ears on the TV are largely over

Those days never existed except for those lucky enough to live within a few miles of the transmitters. These people can still use rabbit ears and pull in quality signals. A friend of mine uses the non-amplified version of this [crutchfield.com] , aimed at an inside wall of his house in the direction of the transmitters, and he pulls in the same channels I do. I'm 15 miles out, with a row of trees in the way, so I had to go to one of these [amazon.com] , mounted on my back porch, which fortuitously happens to face the transmitters. Growing up I lived about 70 miles out, as the crow flies, and we had to use something like this [amazon.com] , on a mast, with in-line amplifiers, and an antenna rotor.

Regarding 8VSB, current receivers can handle multi-path just fine. You're also overlooking the fact that multi-path was an issue with NTSC as well, leading to ghost images. Digital either works or it doesn't, invest in a quality receiver and proper antenna design (rabbit ears don't count) and you're very likely to end up in the "works" category.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47348299)

I used to be able to pull in every local station with a set of rabbit ears and depending on your definition of "few" I was not within a few miles of all of them. I resisted cable for a long time and have since cut the cord and now live about 60 miles from transmitters so I was really hoping Aereo would win.

Depending on what OTA stations want for retransmission fees, I think Aereo could still be a solution for many people.

Someone mentioned their cable company sold local only for $4.95 a month. Adding that on top of Aereo's fees wouldn't be too bad. (I doubt it's actually that cheap though).

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47349667)

It really is that cheap. $4.95/mo for the package + $0.43 in franchise fees = $5.38/mo. It nets you seven channels, contrasted to the nine I get with my OTA rig. It's missing three of the subchannels I get with OTA and includes QVC (thanks for that Time Warner). I believe people with QAM tuners get a few extra channels, which aren't encrypted, but it's been awhile since I've had cable so I'd have to confirm that.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 3 months ago | (#47342011)

PBS doesn't do it for the sole reason that the law forbids non-commercial entities from seeking retransmission fees. Don't think for a second that they wouldn't if they could. Remember, PBS is one of the organizations that launched the original lawsuit against Aereo. They make a ton of money from the sales of their DVDs, and it was their opinion that Aereo was reducing the value of these sales by allowing users to make DVR recordings of them at a very low cost (otherwise your typical DVR costs a lot more than that $8 a month, in addition to to the cost of the DVR itself where applicable.)

PBS isn't at all the "needy" organization it is frequently made out to be. They make QUITE a hefty sum of money even without donations. Being a non-profit organization doesn't say much about how much money those behind it actually make. Just look at Scientology for example.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47342141)

You're tacitly equating the organization that gave us Reading Rainbow, The News Hour, and Nova with the organization that gave us Xenu? Seriously?

Incidentally, there is a difference between PBS and its member stations, whom receive most of the benefit from the pledge drives. I can't speak to the financial situation of PBS, but I do have friends on the board of our local PBS station, and they've never been flush with cash.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 3 months ago | (#47356485)

You're tacitly equating the organization that gave us Reading Rainbow, The News Hour, and Nova with the organization that gave us Xenu? Seriously?

No, I'm just giving you an example of why a not for profit doesn't mean there's no profit involved. That isn't used as a means of equating or even comparing the two organizations whatsoever, it's just better describing what exactly not for profit means.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47348311)

I sent an e-mail to my local PBS station because they show a lot of crap and repeat it a LOT. A lot of it seemed like infomercials (e.g. Gary Null) and they would repeat the same thing 2-3 times in a row.

I mentioned that there must be a ton of Frontline and Nova specials they could air and the response was that it costs them money every time they show one of those.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 3 months ago | (#47356571)

Oh and by the way, PBS president Paula Kerger brings in somewhere north of $600,000 per year annually. He personally was one of those lobbying for the government to put the brakes on Aereo. He also regularly lobbies for more government funding to PBS. That's just to give you an idea of what you defended when you said with regard to this lawsuit, and I quote: "Take PBS out of the equation."

I hear people rail all day about CEO pay being too much, while these same people often believe that PBS deserves taxpayer funds. That company, believe it or not, is plenty profitable on its own, and indeed receives payment from affiliates every time they air shows like Nova. While the affiliates may or may not make a sizable profit (some do, some don't - some neither profit nor lose, such as AZ affiliate KAET which is funded and run by ASU for example) any donations to those affiliates line the pockets of those behind PBS.

Sure these educational programs are nice, don't get me wrong, but their motives behind suing to block Aereo don't simply come from the goodness of their hearts; there's definitely a profit motive.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47341051)

Here's an interesting history [thomsonreuters.com] of the relevant legislation if you're curious.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341117)

Time travel.

Why would anybody watch over-the-air tv in real-time when you can get next weeks tv for free. You need the fee to pay for the over-the-air content.

cable paying positive, or negative fees to channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342445)

There is a channel, and a cable company. A channel could pay a postive, or negative, fee to the cable company to carry its content. In a totally free market, some channels would pay a positive fee, others would pay a negative fee.

America does NOT have a totally free market. Congress made it illegal for channels to pay a positive fee to the cable company to carry its content. If a channel wants the cable company to carry its channel, Congress says the cable company MUST carry the channel free of charge. If the channel wants to pay a negative fee to the cable company, the cable company DOES NOT have to carry the channel.

That is why cable companies periodically try to drop some over the air channels, and the channel tries to paint it as the big, evil cable company trying to kill the little tv channel. What the channel is really saying is, "We want you cable users to keep paying to receive this channel via cable. Yes you could say money by watching this show over the air for free, but we want more money." Many viewers keep supporting the 'local channels', so cable keeps paying positive fees to some tv channels. The public gets what it deserves.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341005)

'use a loophole' == 'do something legal' what we have here is a ruleing that basically says that doing something legal that seems like it should be illegal is not in fact legal. something that should be scary to everyone. the other mvpds can't really exploit this since it requires antenna arrays leased to the consumer and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than a broadcast approach.

btw, they most likely can't stay arround because thus far the programmers have been unwiling to do deals with ott providers.

Re: They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341605)

No a loophole is something that was supposed to be illegal, but the actual wording of the law did not actually cover it. This leaves it ambiguous. The court then decides.
That is law laws can reach thousands of pages since the words matter more than the intent.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47341059)

but they tried to use an loop hole to get out of paying the fees to the OTA channels for the rights to retransmit.

In fact, those are rights to rebroadcast. While technically you would have to describe Aereo as "transmission", what they are really doing is transporting, and they are doing it as your agent.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342183)

And transmitting is different from transporting, how?

What you describe is also exactly what the community access antennas in the 70s were doing to get this law made in the first place. No dice.

Pay the fees or challenge the law mandating the fees in the first place. Aereo shouldn't get a free pass that isn't available to any other commercial operator (not just the evil cable companies, but also small community co-ops and local providers).

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47344755)

And transmitting is different from transporting, how?

Because broadcast is a likely synonym for transmit (and vice versa) but not for transport, and no broadcast is occurring — in fact, precisely the opposite — "transport" is probably a better word to describe what they do.

Pay the fees or challenge the law mandating the fees in the first place. Aereo shouldn't get a free pass that isn't available to any other commercial operator

It should be available to all, because they're not infringing upon broadcast rights designed to ensure that content and commercials are delivered together.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345647)

Because broadcast is a likely synonym for transmit (and vice versa) but not for transport

You're splitting hairs with no legal significance. If you're inserting yourself between the broadcast and an individual, private citizen, you're rebroadcasting and you have to pay.

It should be available to all, because they're not infringing upon broadcast rights designed to ensure that content and commercials are delivered together.

Which is just another way of saying that you don't think carriage fees should be legal, and the answer is the same: change the law and be prepared for additional advertising or a reduction in content.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (1)

fermion (181285) | about 3 months ago | (#47342097)

So when you drive your car, you should have to pay for every toll road in the country, not just the toll roads you use?

Here is the difference between Aero and Cable, and the reason the so called loop hole is valid. Cable collects all the broadcasts signals and retransmitts all those signals along to all subscribers. The fee is the right to collect and retransmit en masse.

There is also and issue of the broadcasters use of the public airwaves. In exchange for this use, it is assumed that the tax payers of this country have access to free programing. Aero is a service that allows us to access that free content. Cable is a service where you buy access to content. Aero is a service where you specify a program to watch, or to record, and that one program is transmitted to you and only you. Cable is a service where all the programs are transmitted to you to be selected in immediate real time, even switch between channels, or channel in channel.

Here is an example, and everyone can decide if this is illegal. Tivo allows a broad range of remote capabilities. Suppose I opened a service in which I filled a warehouse with Tivos and antennas. End users would enter a contract where they would rent a Tivo and antenna. They would use the TIvo interface to control the content. I would have no control over what was being transmitted. Would that be illegal? What if I built a custom DVR and a custom interface? Would that be illegal? What if I used a Tivo and 'shared' each one so that six different users?

This is why the ruling is so bad. It reduces our rights to do as we wish with the content that we have given up bandwidth to receive. In excange for use of the the public airwaves, we have the right to free over the air content. That means content that we collect using an antenna and then consumer for personal use. We can record it to VCR, take that tape with us on a trip, and watch it elsewhere.

The only appropriate thing for the broadcasters to do in response to Aero, it they did not want aero to add a convince for users, is to stop using the public airwaves. Go 100% cable or stream over the internet. This is second major problem with the SCOTUS decision. If broadcasters cannot deal with Aero retransmitted a single show to a single user, and if they have become so dependent on cable, then clearly they are wasting bandwidth that could be used for other purposes. The best thing that could have happened to US, if the broadcasters are as inefficient as it seems, is that Aero put them out of business and then we would have all this bandwidth that can be sold to firms that can use it efficiently. All the SCOTUS has done is save the buggy whip industry.

Re:They where acting like the cable co / CATV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342811)

So when you drive your car, you should have to pay for every toll road in the country, not just the toll roads you use?

Not a promising start for you, considering that Aereo only made local channels available to each subscriber within his or her own viewing area.

There is also and issue of the broadcasters use of the public airwaves. In exchange for this use, it is assumed that the tax payers of this country have access to free programing. Aero is a service that allows us to access that free content. Cable is a service where you buy access to content.

The deal with public airwaves is that individual private citizens can receive that content without payment on their own property for their own legal use. If you receive that content from a company that is selling its access to you, then that company has to pay retransmission fees. If the access to the channels you're paying for goes away without paying the intermediary, then they are a redistributor. Cable companies have to pay to carry local channels. Aereo also has to pay, which they could choose to do and offer their same service. They chose not to.

They would use the TIvo interface to control the content. I would have no control over what was being transmitted. Would that be illegal?

The Tivo isn't rebroadcasting, and the DVR service would be fine, but you would still have to pay to be the intermediary between the public airwaves and the citizen.

This is why the ruling is so bad. It reduces our rights to do as we wish with the content that we have given up bandwidth to receive.

It absolutely does not. You can still personally do everything you could do before, and if you set up your own remote antenna or personal streaming access, then you're fine. Aereo can even still offer this service to customers. They just have to pay for retransmission licensing.

This is second major problem with the SCOTUS decision. If broadcasters cannot deal with Aero retransmitted a single show to a single user, and if they have become so dependent on cable, then clearly they are wasting bandwidth that could be used for other purposes

False dichotomy. Providing free access to individuals requires the use of those frequency ranges without completing replacing the infrastructure. Charging companies who wish to extract further profits on that infrastructure isn't really a problem, nor is it a waste if the secondary market accounts for a sizable fraction of revenue.

Why should Aereo be exempt from paying as an intermediary when it generates money off of the existence of that infrastructure without contributing to its costs? You don't seem to care that broadcasters have to pay for content from studios and production companies before they broadcast it, so why is it that you care about Aereo not being obligated to chip in?

if the broadcasters are as inefficient as it seems, is that Aero put them out of business and then we would have all this bandwidth that can be sold to firms that can use it efficiently.

One really has nothing to do with the other. All you're actually saying is that broadcasters should be able to afford to provide the necessary content and infrastructure without charge, and yet if you eliminated carriage fees, you'd be complaining about the corresponding increase in commercials.

Where? (1)

antdude (79039) | about 3 months ago | (#47342801)

Where != were.

THE FLOODGATES KEEPING AWAY THE LAWYERS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340759)

Is gone and DOOM IS SURELY to come !!

If you want to believe the whitewash that all is fine for everyone but Aereo then you may as well stuck your head in the sand.

They lawyers, they WILL come !! Where there is blood in the water, they WILL come !!

Um (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340825)

If they simply delay the stream by a tiny amount, even just a few seconds, the decision no longer applies, because then it becomes timeshifting on behalf of the customer, rather than live retransmission. Am I the only one who sees this loophole?I hope not.

Re:Um (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47341199)

Cut the ads out while you're at it. That should make the networks happy.

Re:Um (2)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 3 months ago | (#47342271)

I think it's even mentioned at one point of the Supreme Court's decision. They'll have to do a bit more than that, and only offer pre-recorded programming, but It'll probably be done and, if they have the money to survive the lawsuits, it'll end up before the Supreme Court again. http://nypost.com/2014/06/26/hope-for-aereo-despite-supreme-court-defeat/ [nypost.com]

The geek too clever for his own good. (1)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#47342601)

If they simply delay the stream by a tiny amount, even just a few seconds, the decision no longer applies, because then it becomes timeshifting on behalf of the customer, rather than live retransmission. Am I the only one who sees this loophole?

The Supremes don't take it well when you try to evade their decisions by resorting to half-assed tricks and gimmicks. Tricks that may be particularly embarrassing to the minority who stood by you the first time around.

Kanojia has some work to do (1)

jpellino (202698) | about 3 months ago | (#47340829)

Got a second customer letter this morning - he's framing it as this is against progress *qua* progress. That sort of approach won't work - he needs to find whatever business model will work with what they want to accomplish.

What the fuck is Aereo? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340853)

Why the fuck do basic tech terms get defined, but "Aereo" has no explanation?

Re:What the fuck is Aereo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340859)

No shit.

Re:What the fuck is Aereo? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 3 months ago | (#47341403)

You expect the /. editors to actually do their job?

Bwahahaha.

They have been slacking the day /. started.

And yes, it sucks that they can't even post a summary to set the context.

Re:What the fuck is Aereo? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 3 months ago | (#47343845)

yeah I was like "WTF is Aereo" also, and had to google for it.

And the summary mentions the Supremes but does not explain why Diana Ross and the Supremes are involved with a flaky soon-to-be-dead internet startup.

Legislating from the bench (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47340915)

Let's be clear on what happened here. The supposedly conservative judges modified an existing law.

They took the text of the law and decided that something that complied with the letter of the law was still in violation "because".

Because what? Because they thought that the intent of the legislators when passing the law was to ban this type of arrangement. Perhaps so, but that should not be relevant. What should be relevant is the text of the law. What happened was that the Supreme Court essentially re-wrote the law. But more than this, if any law doesn't mean what the text says it means, how can there be any certainty in society?

As for the claim that this only applies to Aereo, that is either a deliberate lie or great naiivete by the Supreme Court. Already Fox is attempting to use the ruling against Direct TV.

Re:Legislating from the bench (2, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47341035)

The supposedly conservative judges modified an existing law.

The three dissents came from the conservative side of the court: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Maybe next time you should read the ruling (or even the Wikipedia summary) before you open your mouth? Of course, that wouldn't have meshed with your talking points, so why bother to learn the facts when you can take a cheap shot?

Re:Legislating from the bench (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341513)

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Maybe next time you should read the ruling (or even the Wikipedia summary) before you open your mouth? Of course, that wouldn't have meshed with your talking points, so why bother to learn the facts when you can take a cheap shot?

And you should also get your facts straight. Scalia only dissented with the rationale for declaring Aereo illegal. He declared it illegal on other grounds.

Re:Legislating from the bench (1)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#47341201)

They took the text of the law and decided that something that complied with the letter of the law was still in violation "because".

Because -----

Aereo was a community antenna system operating under the thinnest of legal and technical disguises and for CATV the rules have been clear at least since the mid-nineties.

Re:Legislating from the bench (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342365)

Not a community antenna. One antenna services one person.

Re:Legislating from the bench (1)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#47343033)

Not a community antenna. One antenna services one person.

more like a fixed array of antennas serving a great many people.

and marketed to the same audience that began subscribing to community antenna services in the late 1940s.

57 channels and nothing on... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341079)

Why do people waste so much energy on TV?

Re:57 channels and nothing on... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47341273)

TV content has became so bad that even if they offered me a few buck to watch shows, I wouldn't be interested. What passes today as TV really sucks. What they need to do is produce a better product with less ads. As far as Aereo, again for what ? A better way to watch shit TV ? Funny stuff.

Aereo can I at least get my PBS stream? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | about 3 months ago | (#47341379)

Aereo can certainly stream PBS and other must carry stations legally by this ruling.

Please Aereo, continue carrying these streams while you work for a solution.

What they should have done... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 3 months ago | (#47341501)

What they should have done is lease or sell the boxes to their subscribers and charge a monthly service fee to keep their boxes from being attacked by viruses, etc.

That way they can't be sued for anything but installing commodity software at the owner's request.

This (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#47342385)

This is why we can't have nice things.

If they only gave it away? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47342675)

If Aereo had only given away the service they might have survived? Then again. its still rebroadcasting a copyrighted station and content. I am not sure what they hope a lesser court can do now? What they need to consider is if their subscribers are that loyal as to pay more to cover the licenses to re broadcast their channels? I highly doubt it considering you can buy a satellite service for $20 or so and get local channels. As I see it their are other companies re broadcasting legally through streaming, such as Hulu and Netflix. Many station even stream channels on their own sites free. You will always have some cheap skates who need stuff as cheap as possible. Hey, it was fun while it lasted, but most of knew it would not last long. Goodbye Aereo.

Sell the equipment and encrypt the signal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47343249)

Some of the disqussion I've heard about aero is that they retransmit "about the same time" as the transmission which is freely available through public airwaves. If I could hook up an HD antenna to my phone I could pick up the signals. So, what if:

1. They delayed the retransmission (some sites said maybe 10 minutes, what about an hour?)
2. What if they SOLD the equipment to the subscribers rather than renting it? Maybe $99 or $129 depending upon the amount of data storage you want. They would just be another cloud service. In fact, they could encrypt the signals when recorded, and decrypt them only on the subscriber's system. Now it CAN'T be a public performance.

Let's be real, here. You only get the signals for your local area. You can't get Chicago channels if you live in New York. Some of us live in areas where there are NO channels via HD. Our options are limited. Lucky guys.

It's not retransmission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47343259)

If I could find someone to host a receiver for me in the big city, then hook it up to the Internet, I could do the same thing. Stick a tuner card in a PC that is always on. That's all that aereo is doing.

Re:It's not retransmission (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#47343973)

That's retransmission for one person (you). Aereo was doing mass retransmission -- also known as redistribution.

They should totally restructure their business (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#47343555)

Have one company that "rents" the antenna and provides a Software Defined Radio as a Service offering, where an API is simply provided to provision an antenna controller box which has its own IP address that listens on a specified frequency and bandwidth, compresses the bits, and streams them to the consumer.

Then another company that makes a box, which integrates with this service and "selects" television channels, from the radio antenna provider who is acting as a common carrier for "capturing signals in the air" and feeding them through across mediums, with no specific knowledge or interpretation of those signals or what data they might represent.

US Supreme Court bombed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346559)

Look at this example. With technology, technically, according to the US Supreme Court, the act of my antenna on a roof picking up a signal and transmitting it to my TV is in fact, "retransmission".

But it simply isn't so.

Also what precisely is the difference between my antenna wire and the internet? This is the exact same issue that impacts other technologies, often in the forms of patents. Once a technology is patented, sometimes a new technology comes along like Ethernet replacing modem, but the courts have been allowing the patent to continue to function applying the patents technologies to the new technologies. This is exactly the same things that make Newegg lose to a recent patent troll who had patented the use of encryption over telephony modems between machines. The patent was applied to the modern infrastructure, and Newegg was found to be in infringement.

In the case of Aereo, the company has merely shifted the distribution from antenna cable to internet cable (fiber/copper line and even wireless Ethernet), and allowed the antenna to be placed at a remote facility off my actual property. My belief is that with Aereo's service I am in fact renting an antenna, running my account inside a VPS on their services, and streaming the video over to my devices via the internet, which is simply a more modern way of handling video data delivery than we're used to.

Somebody fucked up big time at the US Supreme Court for saying this product is anything different that I just explained it.

Also I think Aereo should tweak their service a bit, and relaunch it. Function as if the website browser or streaming platform was the new "driver" or "TV" screen for interfacing with the broadcasted content. But a focus on the fact that each user is renting time to use an antenna and VPS inside their machine whereby they run the Aereo remote broadcasting software should be in order, so that technically it's the users own server doing the streaming ...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>