DOJ Backs Broadcasters In Aereo Supreme Court Fight

In other news... congressional leaders have seen a large influx of donations from the big 3 broadcast companies.. next the weather.

quote:

---

while arguing Aereo can be defeated without impacting the fate of other technologies

---

The current DOJ is so politicized and consistently wrong, I'd take their opinion with a huge grain of salt.

This has nothing to do with Congress. The Justice (for me, but not for thee) Department is part of the Executive Branch, which is Barack Obama's bailiwick. Hollyweird and the broadcast industry have both pretty consistently supported the Pretender, so it's no surprise his "justice" department would sing their tune.

Jim

Further proof we have the best government that money can buy. There is still hope that Aereo could prevail, but this does not bode well.

Yeah, this is the DoJ that claims that only certain groups of people can be victimized by hate crimes (and therefore, only certain groups of people can commit hate crimes).

And here I thought Uncle Sam would happily drive a stake into OTA's heart, given the FCC's obsession with reclaiming that spectrum for more mobile broadband.

+1

+1

Exactly. The Comcast/NBC deal was helped by the fact that certain NBC executives are big campaign donors.

you forgot corrupt

it's copyright infringement.

When a corporation wants to outsource anything, it's sound business practice.

If corporations are people too, then the corollary must also be true .....people can be corporations as well (and never serve jail time).

It looks like this DOJ filing was bought and paid for by the OTA industry. Aereo is complying with every technical aspect of the current law and DOJ claims they are breaking the law. Meanwhile other services that follow that same law and technical requirements ARE NOT breaking the law. Go figure that one out.

As I have said before, the simple solution is for the content providers to go to congress, drop a couple of hundred million on them and buy a change in the law.

But but... hope... and change.

I know it's not necessarily what you were implying, but you can establish a legal business entity to limit liability for business activities anytime you'd like. There are several options available.

was DOJ paid for this exactly?

Unknown but clearly some people in the right places just secured their high paying positions on Lobby Row in DC when they retire from the DOJ.

So, you REALLY think those f-tards in congress didn't have anything to do with "suggesting" this action. I need to stop watching CSPAN

+2

That, and Eric Holder is perhaps the most corrupt and incompetent attorney general to have ever held that position. Everything bad anybody has ever said about Reno (shudder,) Ashcroft, and Gonzales...those guys have nothing on Holder.

+1

And you think Obama does what congress wants?

"Money (That's What I Want)"
"Money (That's What I Want)"
"Money (That's What I Want)"
"Money (That's What I Want)"
DOJ

Surprise!

Best Government money can buy (Off)

The Pretender?

Damn that was a great show.

Aero will have to probably pay retransmission fees and then raise their rates to those similar of a cable/satellite subscription.

It's not that broadcasters are against over the top technologies, it's those that push the technologies want retransmission contracts that would allow them to charge a fraction of the rates of traditional cable/satellite subscriptions. The average cable bill is about $70 a month, the streaming providers want to charge $12 a month for the same content. That's the sticking point and that is why over the top technologies are going nowhere. You can't charge $12 a month for content that costs you $50 per month to obtain. ESPN costs $5 per subscriber alone.

In the business world, if you pay the gatekeeper what they demand then you are allowed in. They'll gladly take the money of the streaming providers, the streaming providers will have to charge rates similar to a cable subscription and use some form of content protection.

I was under the impression that Cable was more than just a retransmitter. More like a local TV station that injected its own commercials? Is this not so?

Either way, cable has much more content than OTA so that may have a bit to do with the price difference.

Who'd of thunk... liability can vanish into thin air with the simple act of incorporation!

and ESPN is why I find cable to be BS. damn if I care about paying for that crap as I don't watch sports at all. BS I have to pay for crap I don't want but mind you I don't have cable so I don't have to pay.

No, it doesn't vanish, nor is that what I said. But then you know that already.

The Aereo business model (and the previous court decisions) rest firmly on the ground set by Cablevision's remote DVR service NOT being a 'public performance'. Since it is the user that is in control of the broadcast to themselves (in both cases) the performance is deemed private instead of public. The brief clearly states this then goes to say that the Aereo decision should be reversed but there is no reason to revisit the Cablevision decision since they are an innovative business. There is no legal precedent or justification to describe how the services differ... just that we don't have to bother Cablevision while we squash infringing Aereo. They argue that watching a recording (ala Cablevision) is completely different than watching live TV (even though they admit there is a 5-6 second buffer!) What little legal argument they actually put forward relies on the opinion of the dissenting judge in the Cablevision case. In essence, they DO argue that Cablevision's DVR service is infringing but we only need to consider that against Aereo. :/ If this was my lawyer I would fire him instantly.

Congress cannot even do what congress wants. The current fighting between the Dems and the Teatards that run the GOP means nobody in our government gets a damn thing done that benefits the people.