how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Appeals court stopped preliminary injunction;not the lawsuit This is true. Basically, all the court is saying is that the broadcasters' case isn't an absolute slam dunk. They may still win, but they might also lose.
IMHO, if Aereo had been smart, they would have declared that they were going to launch a TV service and deliver it over the Internet, stating that it will only offer retransmission of broadcast channels and no cable channels, then ask the broadcasters if they choose must carry or retransmission consent. This would have put the broadcasters' parent companies in an incomfortable position. Since they routinely demand carriage of their whole channel portfolios in order to get a particular channel, they might try that tactic, but then Aereo could have argued that they aren't interested in offering cable channels, only broadcast channels for those who can't get good reception. OTOH, they could try and jack up their retrans rates in order to keep Aereo out of the market, but then they could be accused of unfairly discriminating against it. I'm not saying either of these approaches would have triggered a lawsuit, but Aereo could have gotten much mileage out of them in terms of making the broadcasters look like greedy slimeballs who are trying to keep a new competitor out of the market. | |
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | All Aereo does is lease you a TV antenna and TV tuner that you connect to with a long cable.
Aereo does not offer any channels. You only get the channels in range of the TV antenna.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | said by r81984:All Aereo does is lease you a TV antenna and TV tuner that you connect to with a long cable.
Aereo does not offer any channels. You only get the channels in range of the TV antenna.
Couple comments to respond to the points in this thread. First, this is a major victory. No, they didn't win the lawsuit. But the loss of injuctive relief means that Aereo can keep the lights on, so to speak. If the broadcasters won an injunction, then Aereo would be required to cease and desist right now, pending the lawsuit being decided. That loss of business would be a death sentence to most start-ups.
Second, you have to look at WHY the court decided as they did - they indicated that the broadcasters didn't demonstrate that they would likely win in court. Which is the only reason you would grant injuctive relief. No, it's not over, but it's a major victory any way you slice it.
Next, the broadcasters are being very disingenuous here. Their notion that this is theft is bizarre. If that's their arguement going forward, they're going to lose this fight for real. They're only upset because of how they've chosen to negotiate with local cable companies. Many of them have decided not to be specified as must-carry, and negotiate carriage agreements with cable operators. As a result, the more people who watch their channels OTA, the worse it is for them from that perspective. | |
|
