dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-06-30 12:01:13: When the Supreme Court ruled last week that Aereo was violating broadcaster copyright, the majority made some half-hearted assurances that the ruling couldn't be used by broadcasters to try and thwart other innovative TV services. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

Flyonthewall to buzz_4_20

Anon

to buzz_4_20

Re: I don't see how

That's your answer, because it takes power and choice away from consumers and puts it back into the broadcaster hands. They tell you how to watch, when to watch, and what to watch, and how much to pay for that privilege. You only have the right to cancel and not pay. People should really start to exercise that right, it's getting pretty fat and couch potato-ey.

I see a resurgence in home recordings, which I believe are still legal and allow you to fast forward past ads. They can't stop that, yet.

pjcamp
@66.55.141.x

pjcamp

Anon

Hard to see how Fox's argument flies

Aereo did not pay retransmission fees. Dish does. That was the whole crux of the decision.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop

Re: I don't see how

I think FOX's argument would be that it's not illegal for customers to fast forward through commercials but it's illegal for Dish to give customers this capability.

Similar to how it's not illegal for you to rip a DVD you own for your own personal use, but it's illegal to distribute a DVD ripping program to let people rip DVDs they own for their own personal use.
lawpdx
join:2014-04-16
Portland, OR

lawpdx to decifal7

Member

to decifal7

Re: lets

We'd love to see them rot in debt but people are too set in their ways of life. Most complain about the entertainment costs and don't want to do anything and won't. Its the same with voting out the career politicians. Most complain but less than 10% truly vote them out.

Soup
@50.182.54.x

Soup to elefante72

Anon

to elefante72

Re: I don't see how

said by elefante72:

Settled. They don't modify the recording, they add "bookmarks". That is how many ad skipping technologies work to get around yet another law. Which is too bad, considering 33% of your hard drive is filled with crap. If they modified the stream, they would be dead meat.

But if ad bookmarking software screws up and skips part of the show(not unheard of that software has errors in the code),then the content providers have a copyright claim.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to BonezX

Member

to BonezX
I know about all the technicalities and I agree SCOTUS invented a results-driven outcome (...plagiarized that from Scalia's dissent). I was rooting for Aereo because I think OTA re-transmission fees are madness. (IMO -- that's the real error we should fix...)

Of course that's all irrelevant because Breyer's opinion is such that the technicalities don't matter. He believes Aereo's centralized system does substantially the same thing as cable. When the copyright law was amended to read that both the broadcaster and viewer "perform" (freaking utter madness), it made cable companies, who were heretofore classified as viewers, performers. The law allows copyright holders exclusive right to performance and that opened the doors to networks to charging re-transmission fees. To Breyer, Aereo performs and is obligated to pay re-transmission fees.
rradina

1 edit

rradina to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
Yeah -- I guess that could be a grey area given the new ruling. What a shame.

Still, are they claiming Hopper is a performance of their material when place shifted or are they claiming Dish is "enabling" illegal activity by their subscribers. I'm guessing it's the latter which could already be covered by ISP precedent. ISPs are protected because they are not expected to police what customers do with their service. (i.e. they cannot be expected to determine whether the bits customers transmit are breaking any laws.) Dish might be able to claim the same protection since there's legitimate use of this technology within the home. You don't have to be far away and even if they added some feeble restriction for IPs not on the same subnet, VPN eliminates that problem.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112 to rradina

Member

to rradina
Whether or not it's madness, it was created by congress rather deliberately. It should be up to congress to fix it and that means you need to tell your congresscritters how you feel.

mackieg4
Premium Member
join:2003-03-24
Riverside, CA

mackieg4 to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
Why does that matter? Am I missing something?

When you use DishAnywhere to watch live tv you use one of your tuners. It's as if you are sitting in front of the tv. I am paying for this content through Dish. I should be able to watch it anywhere I want.
mackieg4

mackieg4 to Soup

Premium Member

to Soup
IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE ADS!!!!! They are still there. They just "HOP" over them. Hence the name HOPPER!!!! Please do some research before posting ignorant comments.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic to TechyDad

Member

to TechyDad

Re: No surprise.

Thats not entirely correct. It's perfectly legal to rip a DVD. What is not legal is to decrypt CSS to rip that DVD.

BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada

1 edit

BonezX to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina

Re: I don't see how

I'm just wondering about the cognitive ability of the judges involved, Aereo spent SO much money creating equipment and systems to make sure that they followed what was perceived as the law as it existed, yet the law was essentially altered by SCOTUS judges in their ruling.

I guess since they are going to have to pay re-brodcasting fees anyway they might as well just recycle their transmitter system and replace it for a single antenna array like an ACTUAL re-broadcaster does.

This ruling would actually allow broadcasters to levy a re-broadcasting fee to server providers based on the possibility of video content being stored and being broadcasted to a user.
said by rahvin112:

Whether or not it's madness, it was created by congress rather deliberately. It should be up to congress to fix it and that means you need to tell your congresscritters how you feel.

Actually the ruling changes how it is applied, being, Comcast for instance has a single antenna array, they receive one signal and send out multiple signals which is from a technical and practical standpoint re-broadcasting, what Aereo was doing is having multiple antennas each one delegated to single users with no duplication or splitting of signals(each user "owns" one antenna and they are the only one that receives that signal) so there is no actual re-broadcasting in the technical sense and being there is a live or DVR option which is just stored off site and only accessible by the user who pays a rental fee for storing powering and connecting it to their antenna piratically there is no re-broadcast either.
said by mackieg4:

Why does that matter? Am I missing something?

When you use DishAnywhere to watch live tv you use one of your tuners. It's as if you are sitting in front of the tv. I am paying for this content through Dish. I should be able to watch it anywhere I want.

This is how Aereo functions, Fox doesn't like it because they can't get extra fees from Dish(being the service didn't meet the legal definition of a re-broadcast), and the results of this case has given Fox legal precedent to collect re-broadcasting fees from dish.

Overall reply would be, the supreme court just CHANGED the legal definition of a re-broadcast without ANY elected officials input what so ever.
AmericanMan
Premium Member
join:2013-12-28
united state

AmericanMan to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25

Re: So....

said by Skippy25:

I expect to see another case brought up against the makers of VCR's with back paid royalties in the mix.

lol! We laugh now, but I bet dollars to donuts that some copyright exec somewhere has had serious consideration put into that idea (by that I mean a team spending at least a couple of days of research into it ).

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to TechyDad

Member

to TechyDad

Re: I don't see how

Is the hopper "Fast Forwarding" or is it just an automatic skip where the end user does nothing and sees nothing?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to BonezX

Member

to BonezX
said by BonezX:

Overall reply would be, the supreme court just CHANGED the legal definition of a re-broadcast without ANY elected officials input what so ever.

Yeah -- that's why Scalia's dissent is an interesting read. He clearly said Aereo could be a loophole and that it's not the court's role to close loopholes. That's the role of Congress and why you often hear the term "legislating" from the bench. Scalia even went so far as to say it's the role of good lawyers to find and exploit loopholes -- which is what Aereo clearly thought it had done by looking at Cablevision's remote DVR case with (I think) Cartoon Network.
rradina

1 recommendation

rradina to TechyDad

Member

to TechyDad
Are you sure about ripping a DVD? I thought that was covered by the DMCA which made it illegal to defeat copy protection. Of course if you don't distribute it, the MPAA isn't going to care but thought if you are suspected of distributing and a search warrant is executed, you can be liable for every DVD copy they discover.

Hall
MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH

Hall to Skippy25

MVM

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

And if it did but had an option that the user turned on/off at their will then it would still be their choice.

Dish covered as many bases as they could with their "autohop" option:

1) First, it's tied into their auto-record all primetime programming on ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC. There, this option is OFF by default. The user has to enable it.
2) When you watch these programs live, there is NO option for skipping commercials (Dish didn't invent time-travel).
3) When you watch one of these shows (the following day), you are given the option to have it auto-skip the commercials and again, the default is "NO". The user has to enable it.
Hall

Hall to battleop

MVM

to battleop
said by battleop:

Is the hopper "Fast Forwarding" or is it just an automatic skip where the end user does nothing and sees nothing?

The user has to tell the Hopper to auto-skip commercials when you play the show back from the DVR. After you tell it to "Autohop", the user has to do nothing. When the commercials start and end, the DVR skips over them. It's not perfect - you'll often see the start of the first commercial and/or you'll see the end of the last commercial. There's probably a 1-2 second time while it skips.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Are you sure about ripping a DVD? I thought that was covered by the DMCA which made it illegal to defeat copy protection. Of course if you don't distribute it, the MPAA isn't going to care but thought if you are suspected of distributing and a search warrant is executed, you can be liable for every DVD copy they discover.

I think this is where nobody is really sure.

Slysoft breaks US laws by enabling the decrypt and rip but is the rip itself actually a violation.

IMO its not just that they cannot find out if I have every DVD and Blu-Ray I own ripped I think they are scared the DMCA could wind up in front of the SCOTUS. and DMCA vs Fair Use I have a feeling Fair Use would win and the DMCA would get gutted and the industry does not want to risk it.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Carriage dispute

Then Dish has the power to drop Fox effectively cutting them from how many million subscribers dish has.

Considering most consumers fast forward commercials anyways with their DVRs more broadcaster revenue comes from transmission fees than ad revenue.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

VPN + torrents, and newsgroups.

Well there's always the obvious. Where industry won't provide, the people will. The people do it so well.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd

Re: I don't see how

I thought most current DVDs/Blu-rays included the ability to transfer a digital copy to a tablet/laptop/desktop. Doesn't this defeat the necessity to break encryption for a fair use claim?

Hall
MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH

Hall

MVM

The "digital copy" that they include is a (much ?) lower resolution/quality. (Most) People want BD-quality copies.
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7 to lawpdx

Member

to lawpdx

Re: lets

Unless the career politician is actually working for me I never vote for the incumbent... And I understand the people set in their ways.. They feel that if you don't keep up with the shows then they might fall out of the loop...

to heck with the loop, pick up a book
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina

Re: I don't see how

Usually it comes with lots of restrictions on which devices can play it and many times wants a special player software. If you rip it you can use anything that can read that format and consume it how you choose not how they choose and once the money changes hands they loose the right to choose how I consume.
Kearnstd

Kearnstd to decifal7

Premium Member

to decifal7

Re: lets

The ultimate solution to the incumbent lawmaker problem is term limits, Meaning every 8 years people have no choice but to pick a new congress critter. It would also help us clean out the fridge(Congress) that is currently filled with old rotting things that nobody can identify.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd

Re: I don't see how

My question isn't quality or usage restrictions. My question is, does this ability, offered without penetrating cloudy laws, good enough to satisfy fair use? If it is, the judicial system no longer has a context in which DMCA collides with precedent.

Foxsucks
@74.111.46.x

Foxsucks to Skippy25

Anon

to Skippy25

Re: Like a number 10 can of worms.

Dish has a lot better lawyers, plus I am thinking this is about Dish Anywhere, whitch is technically not free, you have to be a subscriber to use it.
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD

devolved to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25

Re: I don't see how

Which is perfectly legal because you are viewing what is essentially your own receiver as if you are sitting at home in NY even though you are on the other side of the country in LA.
devolved

devolved to rahvin112

Member

to rahvin112
It was created by Congress at the request of the broadcast lobby.

Provides like Charter, Comcast, TWC, etc., provided broadcast networks for their customers based on the customer's location and the networks demanded a retrans fee.

Aereo was doing the same thing as the cable companies were doing but they weren't paying the networks the retrans fee. W

Why should cable companies have to pay the retrans fee to the broadcast networks and Aereo doesn't?

If Aereo had paid the retrans fees in the first place, they'd still be in business today.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next