Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service

timothy posted about three weeks ago | from the crossing-the-streams dept.

Television 210

An anonymous reader writes A day after a surprise U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw streaming TV service Aereo, U.S. broadcaster Fox has moved to use the ruling to clamp down on another internet TV service. Fox has cited Wednesday's ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against a service offered by Dish, America's third largest pay TV service, which streams live TV programming over the internet to its subscribers and allows them to copy programmes onto tablet computers for viewing outside the home.

cancel ×

210 comments

The Law of Intended Consequences (4, Funny)

xigxag (167441) | about three weeks ago | (#47346249)

Er, UNintended Consequences....that's totally what I meant to say...

Jurisdiction (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346883)

There have been numerous cases where a ruling from a court of a certain country (whether it be US or Europe or Timbuktu) regarding the Net has altered the way the Net operates

For example, a Canadian company was found to be "breaching the law" of the USA when its online poker operation was available in the USA and had to pay hundreds of millions in fine to the Uncle Sam

Well ... it's the Net, the operation is in the Net, the company is in Canada, and how come a court inside USA can fine a company in Canada any money in the first place ?

I mean, if USA does not want online poker to run inside its territory, the REAL JURISDICTION of that US court supposed to be limited to ordering that company to shut off the operation to IPs that originate from USA - and nothing else, really

Similar case here ...

A US court find that an online streaming service which streams TV programming (including those from the US teevee channels) has violated some laws INSIDE THE USA, and by jurisdiction, that US court can only order that company to shut off its operation to all IPs which are originated from USA, but no, that company had to shut off ALL OPERATION

What I want to know is, WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS TO LEGAL JURISDICTION ???

And it is not only for online thing only

A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !

What the fuck is going on, people ?

How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???

Re:Jurisdiction (4, Informative)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47346995)

The answer to your question is not simple. Most industrialized countries have treaties with each other that permit legal actions to be taken under any applicable jurisdiction. Even the jurisdiction of a single country can be broad: usually U.S. jurisdiction goes to any person or entity "doing business" on U.S. soil or by any infrastructure located on U.S. soil. European countries will enforce U.S. copyrights, and the U.S. will enforce european copyrights.

Can a U.S. court order a Canadian company to discontinue offering gambling over the Internet? It depends upon the treaties it has with the U.S.

Re:Jurisdiction (4, Insightful)

fafalone (633739) | about three weeks ago | (#47347643)

The problem is you're hung up on the idea of what's legal and/or right. Think of it more along the lines of the mafia. The family running the corner bodega has nothing to do with the mafia, but they're forced to pay for the mafia's "protection services" not because of the mafia's legal right to enforce their policies, but because they have people willing to use coercion to enforce it. The only option is to get someone with more power/force behind them who is willing to stand up; for the bodega owner, that's the police. But there's no one with the power to stand up and force the United States to back down. So the US enforces global jurisdiction because IT CAN. It even prosecutes its own citizens who break US laws in countries where the activity that occurred is legal.
Now I know your first thought might be, well we're not going to use our military against Canada/France, but we have many other forms of coercion. We can and will forbid a particular financial institution to do business with US-based businesses and individuals, so that is the force that keeps them in line.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347923)

Ummm.. Timbuktu isn't a country :-P it's a city.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346253)

subject says it all

Welcome to Amerikkka (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347021)

Where business and law are the same thing.

Re:Welcome to Amerikkka (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347267)

Sure beats other places where the law is made by maniacs, communists, clerics, and other unsavory characters.

Re: Welcome to Amerikkka (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347451)

Don't settle. It might be better than some other situations but it's still far from ideal and we should never relent until the system works the way that it should

Re:Welcome to Amerikkka (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347495)

why your laws are allready made by 3 out of those 4 - the communists have enough sense to stay away.

Big Difference (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | about three weeks ago | (#47346267)

There's a big difference. Dish pays for broadcast rights. Use of the internet is not a question, legally. It's just a transmission medium.

So as long as Dish is paying their fees, they should be free and clear.

Re:Big Difference (2, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about three weeks ago | (#47346301)

They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.

Re: Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346327)

And they arent retransmitting.. the box in my house is (the hopper with Sling built in).
Same with thw tablets. If i want to transfer to my tablet, the hopper prosses the dvr'ed video to a mobile format and then copies *or MOVES* the recording to my tablet, based on if the content 'owner' allows there two be two copies, one on the tablet and one on the DVR both playable or just one playable copy.

This is the studio trying to be like the RIAA and not get with the times. If i can watch a show off of your website for free, why in the hell can't I watch it off the device in my house streamed to a device im currently using?

I think fox is still butt hurt over the auto commercial skip you can enable for showa that are recorded using the Primetime Anytime deal

Re: Big Difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346341)

My TiVo does virtually the exact same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if that's next on their list.

Re: Big Difference (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about three weeks ago | (#47346939)

Yup, the content providers are mortal enemies of DVRs (or at least DVRs that they do not control themselves). They don't like time shifting and they don't like skipping of advertisements.

Re: Big Difference (2)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47347017)

Legally, that's a long way from being banned. There will most likely be some content provider that permits DVRs (even if it's PBS), so DVRs will probably not be going away. The content providers are probably not going to sue individuals: too expensive for too little return. That leaves the content providers suing the bigger players (retransmitters like Dish), which is what we're seeing now.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346333)

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

Re:Big Difference (3, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about three weeks ago | (#47346349)

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

You mean they are allowed to transmit Fox content live but not record it and then stream it to the user? Doesn't fair use also come into it? Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.

Re:Big Difference (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about three weeks ago | (#47346373)

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.

Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Re:Big Difference (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about three weeks ago | (#47346485)

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Cablevision would beg to differ.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347821)

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Cablevision would beg to differ.

They can differ all they want, the Supreme Court decision ONLY covers Aereo. www.xconomy.com/national/2014/06/27/calm-down-aereos-supreme-court-loss-isnt-chaos-for-cloud-tech/

Re:Big Difference (4, Interesting)

spire3661 (1038968) | about three weeks ago | (#47346537)

That needs to change. I am TIRED of one set of rules for the individual and another set for interacting with others. If its legal for me to do, its legal for me to share it with others. Anything less puts a HUGE damper on Information Age societies.

Re:Big Difference (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about three weeks ago | (#47346619)

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

So I can fix my own house, but I can't pay anyone to fix it for me without paying 50% of the repair cost to the original builder. Sounds fair.

Re: Big Difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346645)

Dish isn't. The feed goes right from the sling box built into the Hopper in the customers home right to the device (pc, tablet etc) the end user wants to access the content from.
How do i know? I have the hopper. If i watch my wan traffic or block ports, the remote device cant connect to "Living Room" (in my case) and no remotw viewing can occur.

You should most likely use one and have knowledge of how it works before you spread incorrect info

Re:Big Difference (3, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about three weeks ago | (#47346797)

The users' own Hopper DVR is recording the television, transcoding it, and streaming it across the users' own internet connection to the users' own devices. This is not a service Dish is offering, merely a capability of the physical DVR they are renting to subscribers.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347441)

The users' own Hopper DVR is recording the television, transcoding it, and streaming it across the users' own internet connection to the users' own devices. This is not a service Dish is offering, merely a capability of the physical DVR they are renting to subscribers.

How, exactly, is it different for a device you rent to stream content from your home across the internet than for a device you rent to stream content from a data warehouse across the internet? The only difference between Aereo and Hopper seems to be the physical location of the device. Based on the "looks like cable TV" standard that SCOTUS used to evaluate Aereo, it seems like Hopper will look like On-Demand. Fox is claiming that Dish can retransmit the live broadcast, but not create a library for any-time viewing.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but it is a logical conclusion from the Aereo decision.

Re:Big Difference (3, Informative)

Kagato (116051) | about three weeks ago | (#47346885)

Before making such bold statements I'd do a little more research on the hopper and how it functions. There's no cloud storage here. All the functionality is on the customers DVR and iPad.

Re:Big Difference (4, Funny)

Ichijo (607641) | about three weeks ago | (#47347075)

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Is it one of those things, like sex and human organs, that you can give away for free but you can't charge money for it?

Re:Big Difference (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about three weeks ago | (#47346937)

They seem to need more rights than they have in the current contracts at Dish Network... Dish is always the service getting into trouble, DirecTV always gets its contracts right.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346363)

Too bad it's in the contract they signed, they have to have re-transmission rights in order to get the broadcasts through the satellites.

Fox can go fux themselves, they've got NO legal leg to stand on in this case.

In other news, the fucking assholes cancelled the only good show they had "Almost Human".

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346587)

Fox is famous for canceling good shit. Case in point: Firefly.

They can go fuck the hell off and die a horrible death.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346847)

Fox is famous for canceling good shit. Case in point: Firefly.

You appear to have misspelled "godawful".
Buffy in Space only became a cult following because it was canceled.

Re: Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347615)

Seriously. "Buffy in Space"? If you want to criticize something how about learning something about it first.

Firefly became popular after it was cancelled because it was cancelled but because it was good. The cancelled part was because while it was on the air it was in a time slot that kept getting preempted, and a lot of people simply didn't have the opportunity to watch it. You don't have to like it, but you're not entitled to make up crap and present it as fact.

Re:Big Difference (2)

Baron Von J (2929197) | about three weeks ago | (#47347733)

Fox aired the episodes out of order, and changed both the schedule (both day of week and time of day) multiple times before settling on a time slot with historically low viewership (no matter what show was in the time slot) and didn't air all the episodes that had been produced.

Re:Big Difference (2)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about three weeks ago | (#47346339)

They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.

The article says they have the right to 'broadcast' Fox content, however, it also says they are doing what Aereo was doing in violation of 'an express contractual prohibition'. Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

Re:Big Difference (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about three weeks ago | (#47346429)

Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.

In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.

Re:Big Difference (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about three weeks ago | (#47346959)

VCRs always needed to use "analog hole" methods and unencrypted signals.... DVRs were not allowed to move programs without permission. "Default allow" is common in the world right now, but there are some things you can watch through a TiVo that you can't record.

Re:Big Difference (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about three weeks ago | (#47347319)

The Court's 5-4 ruling ... in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.

The majority opinion:

[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses...

Nothing about an "analog hole" anywhere in there. And tablets are clearly capable of non-infringing uses.

Indeed, devices already exist (such as Slingbox) that allow you to view content from your DVR from not just outside the home, but from anywhere on Earth that has a decent internet connection. And so far nobody has tried to say they are anything but perfectly legal.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347157)

Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.

Re:Big Difference (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about three weeks ago | (#47347819)

Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.

I don't think the service is doing it. It is allowing YOU to do it. That might seem like nitpicking but it's actually a pretty big difference.

If cable companies and the RIAA could not legally stop people from doing it, how could Dish stop people from doing it? Would they be breaking the law?

I don't know. There are a lot of nuances here, and though I have been a Dish customer before, I'm not right now so I don't know much about how this particular thing works.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347547)

Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.

In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.

Ahhh, but you're missing the bigger picture here. A DVR... ALREADY has the content on it. It's been transmitted & stored. A tablet DOESN'T have the content on it. It's being streamed to it & this is the argument FOX has.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346439)

They are "re-transmitting" the signal obviously, they receive it, send it up to the satellites, which then re-broadcasts it to the Earth stations.

That means they have re-broadcast rights.

The bits that do the convert to mobile and transmit to any computer anywhere is done from the unit in MY house, not from Dish. That is perfectly legal and Fox has no say in the matter. The sling device and service has been around for over a decade, Fox lost any chance to prosecute as they didn't do it when the device was first introduced.

Go fux yourself Fox.

Re:Big Difference (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about three weeks ago | (#47346499)

Fox lost any chance to prosecute as they didn't do it when the device was first introduced.

I thought it was common practise to wait as long as possible so the damages awards/threats can be maximised to either extract the most money possible through the courts or extort the largest out-of-court settlement.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347535)

Sorry, it was 2005 when the first Slingbox was introduced. It's only been 9 years that the product has been doing the same thing it's doing now.

Gee Fox - it was illegal 9 years ago, it's not illegal now.

Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346385)

Why are you sticking up for Dish?

I smell a rat. Anyone who sticks up for a big corp is under suspicion. Period.

Sir, I think you are a liar - that's what it boils down to because big business is a bunch of liars and its up to YOU to prove otherwise.

Period.

End of story.

Don't like it? Too fucking bad.

Big business has always been proven to be liars.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346413)

These nonsensical laws shouldn't exist to begin with. They may as well apply to absolutely everything, since they don't make sense to begin with.

Re:Big Difference (0)

guruevi (827432) | about three weeks ago | (#47346425)

Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.

Aereo rents out the antenna
Dish rents out the satellite dish
Aereo rents out the DVR
Dish rents out the DVR
Aereo allows access over the Internet
Dish allows access over the Internet

Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae
Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae

I don't see a difference.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346529)

The recent ruling only covers the "smells like a cable operator" (antenna rental) portion of Aereo's business. The Supremes side-stepped the "cloud DVR" issue entirely.

Dish pays retransmission fees (Hint: Look for the "local broadcast fee" on the bill), and thus makes the situation very different from Aereo (which refuses to pay the fees). Dish will likely use the Cablevision DVR case as a legal shield, which Fox would love to have a chance to overturn.

Re:Big Difference (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about three weeks ago | (#47346561)

The difference is the DVR in question. Aero's DVR is in the cloud and Dish's is in the home of the subscriber. It seems the Supreme Court saw a big enough difference in Aero's distribution as to be infringing while Dish's distribution has been covered for decades by fair use rules. Dish's DVR is no different than a VHS or VCR system from a legal standpoint. In fact I can get a modern DVR for Over The Air (ATSC) [hdtvprimer.com] recording from several [channelmasterstore.com] different [tablotv.com] companies. [simple.tv] In fact I just found this article discussing Aero alternatives [digitaltrends.com] and it mentions all three of the devices I just linked to. The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.

Re:Big Difference (1)

tburkhol (121842) | about three weeks ago | (#47347497)

The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.

But, don't you see that that is exactly the value that Aereo was offering? Space for me to put an antenna that would reliably receive the digital broadcasts that were supposed to be so much better than analog, even in the middle of a forest of concrete and steel. How fondly I remember the pre-digital days, when I could get (slightly staticky) broadcasts from 30 miles away. With great anticipation, I waited on the new digital signals that claimed to provide clearer pictures over even greater distances. Imag.....y dis......nt.......it turns out.....digit....sts don......fully.

Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.

Re:Big Difference (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about three weeks ago | (#47347575)

Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.

Not exactly. The way I understood how the SC ruled was the device would need to get the signal directly from the broadcaster and be located in the consumer's residence. So a consumer would need to have the DVR located on the premises and receive the signal directly from broadcasters via a local antenna. The Tablo [tablotv.com] is basically the same as the Aero service except you own the device and set it up at home. The Tablo doesn't even have a video out port. It's tuners are only accessible through streaming clients. It doesn't solve the concrete/metal interference problem that Aero did and perhaps they should pursue that argument on their appeal. I disagree with the SC finding as Aero was not altering in any way the content being delivered whereas the cable/satellite companies actually inject extra content/advertising into their rebroadcasts. Ultimately the networks want Aero to have to pay for retransmission and are lobbying even the courts to make that a reality.

Re:Big Difference (1)

mark-t (151149) | about three weeks ago | (#47346669)

The difference is Dish pays broadcast rights. Aereo doesn't.

Re:Big Difference (2, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about three weeks ago | (#47346715)

Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.

Aereo rents out the antenna Dish rents out the satellite dish Aereo rents out the DVR Dish rents out the DVR Aereo allows access over the Internet Dish allows access over the Internet

Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae

I don't see a difference.

Take a look at the bold section, notice that it does not say Aereo. Aereo did not pay for broadcasting rights, Dish does, as even stated in your post.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347571)

Aereo is *not* a broacaster. they are a cloud dvr provider. If they are a *broadcaster* then so is your home dvr (which might go over a WiFi network) and so (definitely) is any cloud backup/retrievel system (e.g. Dropbox, iDrive, etc... all of which allow you to move copyrighted material to the cloud and retrieve it later for use... which in the courts terms means *broadcast*).

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347595)

Dish pays local tv stations to rebroadcast their programming as well - fully covered.

Box in house of consumer - all the difference in the world. Sorry charlie

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347565)

Difference is that the recordings and the "source" for internet viewing is all from the box in your house - not somewhere else on the internet.

That solid piece of information completely isolates it from "smells like a cable operator" decision.

Had Aereo done the same thing, and installed both the antenna and the box in your home, rather than in a centralized location, it would never have failed to defend itself. Even now, that decision is questioned, and the Judge's family and friends are all being audited, as the DA smells something fishy in the court room.

Re:Big Difference (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about three weeks ago | (#47346475)

You know, I know, but "on the internet" has spawned a whole lot of new rules without rhyme and reason or roots in reality, so it seems that "on the internet" means "normal sanity does not apply".

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346589)

Keep drinking the kool-aide.

Re:Big Difference (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about three weeks ago | (#47346623)

The fee will rise to the point they go out of business.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347297)

There's a big difference. Dish pays for broadcast rights.

Big difference to whom? Clearly Fox doesn't actually care one way or another and everything about the Aereo decision seems to only care about broadcast rights in so far as the original broadcasters deem that said broadcasts are sufficiently paid for. Here's a helpful hint: we the people GIVE Fox, et al a privilege to broadcast their TV signal in exchange for being able to receive and view its contents along with a slew of provisions (educational programming, censorship rules, etc). Yet this has all degenerated into a discussion about copyright law and broadcast "rights".

Use of the internet is not a question, legally. It's just a transmission medium.

Really? Because everything about Aereo stinks of precisely that. If Aereo had been a set of antennas and really, really long wires then "broadcast" or "re-broadcast" wouldn't even enter into the discussion. The very fact that the internet functions by copying has translated into a perverse and technical distinction that's, I'd say, being abused because a computer is involved. Hence, the whole legally of it is in question and honestly already settled a long time ago*.

So as long as Dish is paying their fees, they should be free and clear.

The beauty of that statement is the absurdity that presumes that if Aereo had been paying some fee they wouldn't have been sued. Well, hey, Dish is being sued. That they may be "free and clear" in that the courts may eventually side with them changes little of the fact that they'll spend millions to defend themselves and plenty of other companies would just fold under the pressure. But, yea, whatever.

*The essential step defense [wikia.com] was established decades ago precisely to deal with the issue that computer software needs to be copied into RAM to function and hence the act of using was spelled out as protected in regards to copyright. Now, obviously, the language itself speaks of just software, but until the Aereo case it was effectively established that it really applied to ALL copyrighted material because obviously otherwise every digital mp3, video, etc player would infringe copyright as there's invariable a step of decoding a frame of digital input back to the decompressed analogy output. The overriding rule has seemingly always been that as long as personal, non-commercial** use was involved that the per say content was irrelevant and the actual location of all the various equipment was equally irrelevant. Honestly, no matter the language of the Supreme Court ruling over the Aereo case of the limited scope, it's clear that there's no way to take the ruling but a very overly broad and inconsistent interpretation of what has come before. So, it's little wonder Fox might want to further wedge the issue for more money.

**In this case, the issue of non-commercial does not mean that you own the equipment (or basically all 3rd party servers would run afoul of the law) or that someone isn't making money off your use (or Google, MS, etc and their e-mail services would be up shit creek). It merely means that the person in question doing the use isn't themselves trying to gain commercially from their use directly in that use. They could still indirectly be gaining commercially (a 3rd party server running massive compiles of anything where the compiler is proprietary). Of course this whole mess is heavily due to the fact that copyright law breaks down at a logistical level severely once you do start talking in terms of a situation where parts of a program may be running on multiple continents simultaneously with multiple people. No amount of licensing, even a site license, necessary protects you if said copyright holder argues, well, whatever the fuck he wants.

And that's the fundamental issue with the whole problem. Because copyright is fundamentally a civil issue and up to copyright holders to argue however they want within the scope of the law, the law has become (through precedents like Aereo) so fluid to basically allow near argument that a copyright holder argues so long as they can conjure up a supposed new form of copying no matter how much it behaves otherwise like an old, protected form of copying. The "with a computer" or "over the internet" aspect is enough to confuse a jury or a judge and behold yet another wave of money grabbing by copyright holders who seek new revenue streams.

And it's this last part that's most infuriating for the whole circumstance. Copyright was granted as a privilege to promote the arts and sciences, not as a means to promote the financial sector in creating new financial instruments to further cloud issues of property and ownership and use. That the only recourse is to "not use" said material becomes absurd precisely because use is precisely the thing everyone has an inherent right to. That we chose as a society to give up that right in exchange for something should mean we're actually getting something in return. If anything, the first step in any chaffing on the issue should be to rescind the copyright holder's claims and allow more use, not less. Perhaps if we saw some actual punishment against copyright holders for their endless greed we'd see some more, actual competition.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347621)

All good and well, you've explained exactly why the Dish equipment is fine.

Dish subscibers get the equipment, it sits in their house, it stores the video in their house, it converts and sends data from their house to their devices.

All perfectly legal and legit. Fox can go suck 30 days in 90 degree F weather rotten eggs.

Re:Big Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347795)

All perfectly legal and legit.

And everything about what Aereo subscribers were doing seemed perfectly legitimate and legit. The equipment was rented. The space it sat on was rented. The video was stored in rented space. And it converted and sent from rented space to their devices. Given all the above can be true with a Dish subscriber setup (the DVR equipment is rented and where you live may well be rented space), I don't see it changing much. After all, if there was any real complaint to be had, it should have been with Aereo/Dish subscribers and questioning whether *they* were making illegitimate copies. That the Supreme Court decided, through argument by copyright holders, that it was Aereo that was even involved may well spell doom for Dish.

That's the real crux of the issue, as I say. The Courts let copyright holders go after Napster and Aereo. They tried to go after Sony with Betamax. The courts should have long ago ruled that it be required to go after actual infringing use and not merely possible facilitators unless it clear they conspire to willfully infringe--and it's not enough that they merely seek to reward those who spawn a lot of premium accounts or ad revenue since that's precisely how Youtube operates without any willful nfringing*. And all the talk of "pirates ruin it for the rest of us"...well, Aereo just proves the point of how far off that is because nothing about Aereo has even begun to be suggested to be about piracy and neither has this case with Dish. It's all about copyright holders wanting more control and more money. Greedy fucks.

*And it's despicable that Youtube has basically had to bend over for "content providers" to avoid a stacked court that sees "content providers" as the only true copyright holders and hence mass copying MUST be of their content and hence violate their copyrights and hence must be willful infringement of their copyrights.

Wow, I wish you were right. (3, Insightful)

Slartibartfast (3395) | about three weeks ago | (#47347767)

But you're not. (For the record, I work for $MAJORCABLECOMPANY as an engineer in the group... well, under discussion. So I'm somewhat informed.) Case in point: the ability to use a song in a movie for theatric release is not the same as the ability to use the song when released on DVD. Likewise, songs played on the radio cannot (unless, of course, specified) be willy-nilly copied for downloads in podcats. The biggie, of course, is region-enforced blackouts for sporting events.

I could give more pertinent examples, but I also like my job, so I guess I'll have to take a pass. But trust me: it ain't as easy as you'd like to make it out.

Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (5, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about three weeks ago | (#47346345)

There are people who make money with outdated systems that technology decimates. These horse and buggy people would love to see the Internet removed completely. This is why you see places like NBC not streaming the Olympics to everyone on the Internet, but only to cable subscribers. Sure NBC could make a boat load by putting localized advertisements in. People would have made out too if NBC put the Olympics on the Internet because they could watch the events they want when they want instead of waking up at 2 am. NBC is in bed with Comcast though and just wants more cable subscriptions instead of providing a quality service. And Comcast is afraid that if people stream quality programming, that more people will cord cut. So there's little incentive for Comcast to provide better Upload/Download speed. The RIAA from what I hear is making tons of money suing everyone they can, even local places in the sticks are getting sued for using non licensed music in karaoke. Some people would benefit if the Internet ceased to exist completely. This is the same as people who would have benefited if the automobile never got invented.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346403)

Since you apparently missed it, NBC is Comcast. Now we are reaping the Comcastic service they promised.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about three weeks ago | (#47346405)

The problem is, they are winning. I have no cable subscription (except business class data, as it is what I need, and all that is available to me).

The more I look, the LESS content is available legally without having a cable sub and piping in valid creds.

Pretty soon (if they haven't already) they will further limit such streaming to IP address known to be the same customers node. To prevent you from using your friends login and not having your own of course, even though it keeps legitimate customers from streaming abroad.

Further, at least with Comcast, business class connections had been exempt from DMCA threat letters. No more. I received my first this month, and it is no mistake as it mentions home or business-class internet in the letter. It apparently does not matter to them that all sorts of random computers connect to my network. In this case, for repair, not as an open WiFi.

Expect things to get worse as they squeeze other players like Netflix out of existence, and splinter different studios, and such into their own separate services. Expect them to get worse as they use their riches to bribe congress/FCC/courts into doing their bidding.

In ye olden times, the buggy whip makers were a weak, splinters force. The media companies of today are the opposite. Financially and politically powerful, with unified goals, and fewer dissonant voices within their ranks (being only a few inbred corporations anymore, this is not hard to achieve).

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346597)

Further, at least with Comcast, business class connections had been exempt from DMCA threat letters. No more. I received my first this month, and it is no mistake as it mentions home or business-class internet in the letter. It apparently does not matter to them that all sorts of random computers connect to my network. In this case, for repair, not as an open WiFi.

Really? Are you able to say whether actual infringement occurred?

Here's an idea. What if Comcast were to charge us an extra few dollars per month? Use this money to provide lawyers to customers who get sued. In the event the individual loses the trial, he or she doesn't need to worry about his own lawyer cost. It's not a perfect solution.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (0)

barfy (256323) | about three weeks ago | (#47346721)

In other words, I want content for free. I bet you run ad block too...

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346769)

I bet you run ad block too

And you don't? Don't be such a tool.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (1)

alen (225700) | about three weeks ago | (#47346869)

so after the paid billions of $$$ to get the rights they are supposed to give everyone free access?

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about three weeks ago | (#47347125)

If you can somehow make money off advertisements, you'd have more viewers.

Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346947)

They aren't in bed, they are the same corporation.

Greedy bastards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346393)

Let's see how useless and annoying we can make TV and still having people paying for it. It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
I don't know any TV provider here these days who doesn't provide a option to see TV programs at least 14 days back and even a month.
That being said, I have given up on cable tv years ago myself.

Re:Greedy bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346531)

I've heard of a Swedish website that allows you to find other people willing to share parts of their copies or TV shows with no ads and no DRM.

Something like TheBuccaneerAlcove?

New person in the distribution, new fee required (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47346397)

This is not legal advice, but it seems pretty clear:

A subscriber/owner of copyrighted material has the right to time-shift their viewing and to make (backup) copies, but they don't have the right to give a copy to a non-subscriber/owner of the material. What Aereo was doing diminishes the ability of the copyright holder to control how the copyrighted material is marketed/copied. Here we have Fox (copyright holder) controlling how its material is distributed/copied. Dish is not just a "medium", they are redistributing the material and diminishing the market of Fox.

Fox will probably win this out of trial, and they'll probably be collecting a lot of money from Dish in past royalties due.

So it is all about the fees and royalites? (1)

Trachman (3499895) | about three weeks ago | (#47346455)

Except that there are much more smaller and independent channels who would love to get included in the big company's, such as dish TV, programming schedule. I can bet that this will accelerate and will spur more independent producers of the content. Internet was supposed to be a communication medium, delivering a cost effective and convenient way to to share data. One way or another, Aereo ruling will strike back legacy companies in the ways that they have not anticipated.

Re:So it is all about the fees and royalites? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347031)

The answer is always about money. Now, what was the question?

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about three weeks ago | (#47346549)

What Aereo was doing diminishes the ability of the copyright holder to control how the copyrighted material is marketed/copied.

Wow, how terrible. Can't have copyright thugs not being able to control what everyone else does with the data on their own equipment, now can we?

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47346821)

Hey: I'm just giving you my view on the law as it stands today. If you think it should be changed, write your congressman...

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347299)

Hey: I'm just giving you my view on the law as it stands today. If you think it should be changed, write your congressman...

I would, but I'm afraid my well-articulated argument won't fit on my current supply of officially recognized congressional stationery, and the bank won't let me have any more right now.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346667)

No they arent. You have to be a dish subscriber and the dvr box that has sling in (where your remote stream comes from) can only sling the channels and content you're paying for.

The only stufd you can remotely stream or move to a tablet is the exact same content you can watch or record on the dvr within *youe house* as thats exactly where the stream content is pulled from

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requir (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47346867)

I don't remember whether or not Dish has subscribed to receive the Fox material: if memory serves, they were redistributing it much the same way as Aereo (as in assuming the Fox material to be broadcasted content). If Dish does not have a subscription for the Fox material, then it doesn't matter what the subscription agreement between you and Dish contains.

Redistribution without an agreement with Fox is now, as of the Aereo decision, copyright infringement and subject to damages.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346985)

Except Dish is already paying Fox to transmit, or else the local broadcast fee on my bill is a scam. Aero's issue is that they were not paying fees to the rights holders.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requi (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47347037)

Is Dish paying Fox for a general license to rebroadcast, or is it a specific license limited to certain circumstances? I'll bet it's the latter. Fox gets to say how its content will be distributed, much like you get to say who gets to pick which apples from an orchard that you own.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346735)

You and the corporation thugs need to learn that copyrights are NOT property. You don't own a copyright.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47346817)

Actually, copyrights are well understood to be "intellectual" property, and I assure you (as an IP attorney) that copyrights can be owned, assigned (sold) and licensed (rented).

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347369)

Apparently if one is referring to "Get Off My Lawn", IP means its a Property...

But in the case of Property Tax, IP means its just imaginary.

To me, this is just something the waggers-of-the-pen came up with to privatize the profit and socialize the enforcement cost. Let the taxpayer pay for the guns used to enforce the business model of the profit-taker. All one has to do is buy a politician.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about three weeks ago | (#47347523)

When thinking of property, people often confuse the "thing" with the right to exclusively use the thing.

If I own a piece of land or a "chattle" like a pocketwatch, then my ownership in the "property" gives me the right to keep everyone else from "trespassing" or taking it in an act of theft. Property doesn't actually give the owner the right to use the thing: in two examples, I can't build a mine or a dam next to the public highway, and I can't carry a loaded gun that I own into a courthouse.

Intellectual property is the right to exclude others from using things that are not physical. For patents, the owner gets to keep others from using an invention (without a license). For trademarks, the owner gets to exclude others from using the mark with goods or services other than his. For copyrights, the owner gets to keep others from copying his "work of authorship", hence it is a "copy"-"right". Like physical property, the owner of intellectual property gets to have his right enforced in the courts.

I don't claim to be fully educated as to the taxes involved with distributing Fox's material, but I would think that it includes taxes related to infrastructure (fees for having fiber under the public street) and income taxes. We all pay for the court system with our taxes, including the media sources.

The price of any mode of media distribution should reflect fair market value. If you think you're paying to much for something, then go get its equivalent somewhere else for less...

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347633)

There are some similarities between "IP" and real property, but too many fundamental differences [ucla.edu] to call it property. Then there's the fact that the term "intellectual property" is an umbrella term that could refer to trademarks, copyrights, patents, or some combination of those. It's a propaganda term designed to trick people into believing that these things are real property, and to confuse them as to exactly what's being talked about.

then go get its equivalent somewhere else for less...

Like TPB.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347887)

Fox isn't going to win a damned thing, in fact, they'll be paying Dish's court costs.

Here's why.

Dish isn't doing anything, and I mean ANYTHING like Aereo did.

Dish has a license to rebroadcast - everything they transmit, they have a right for.

Dish customers have the Antenna on their house.
Dish customers have the DVR in their house.
Dish customers stream their own local copies to their own devices from their house.

Dish is only responsible for transmitting from their facilities to their customer's house. Which they are fully licensed to do.

So, Fox - you're gonna fuck yourself over with this one dumbshits - but please go ahead, as it will be nice to see you paying out the legal fees on this nuisance lawsuit that you KNOW is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Fox (1)

PPH (736903) | about three weeks ago | (#47346515)

No longer available. And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347405)

Dish, had it, got rid of it, they have lot's of duplicate channels and total garbage shows filling many channels that they push in ads as "more for your money".
Fox shows are mind rot programming targeted to fill the hours of brain-dead zombies.
Agreed, nothing of value lost.

 

Is this anything like TVcatchup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346519)

TVcatchup is a service available in the UK which streams a selection of free-to-air channels (including the main five) and which tacks an obligatory (you have to do more than simply install ABP if you want to avoid watching it) advertisement to the beginning of each stream. Fort

The people who run it are obnoxious money-grubbers who are blatantly profiting off others' hard work - the sort of leeching capitalists who get very rich from doing very little that the current British government champions. But the statute which exists to allow cable TV providers to retransmit the main terrestrial channels is sufficiently broad as to allow TVcatchup to operate for those channels. For remaining free-to-air channels, some OK it, and some do it - though they started by retransmitting all without obtaining permission, and in their very first incarnation included a recording service.

Here we go (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about three weeks ago | (#47346615)

The beginning of the end for streaming services.

I'm a cordcutter and won't pay retransmission fees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346621)

If it is free over the air, I don't see why I'd even begin to pay retransmission fees. The last thing I watched over the air was the Super Bowl, and I had the streaming set up in case the Mohu antenna didn't do what it needed to do.

I don't think I'm alone.

straws..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47346819)

just ... out ... of ... reach

try again, fox. try, try again. and fuck off while you're at it.

Loophole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347181)

As much as I love the idea of Aereo they were simply using a loophole. Sorry but they don't have the rights to rebroadcast someone elses product and be making money off of it.

If Aereo were free except you pay for the antenna in each city and the internet cost there to retransmit it, then you can claim it's for personal use only. But Aereo is making money directly off other people's content without their permission.

It makes perfect sense to me that should not be allowed.

Can we just have a la carte internet TV already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347385)

Seriously, the internet would let us literally build our own TV packages if we want. Why be limited to what's broadcast over here? How about a global gateway where you can pick and choose any TV channel you want, pay a fee per channel and you've got your own customised package showing exactly what you want.

There is literally no technical reason why we can't have this - it's just draconian territory TV licensing that's stopping this from happening. We already can do it with radio, TV should be next!

It's All Leverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47347671)

Charlie used AutoHop to get the price down on ABC channels, now he'll use Sling to get the price down on FOX.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...