dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed

turnerbrewer

join:2011-11-22
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: I am with the broadcasters on this one

I am with Aereo.
I pay TIVO $14.99 a month to subscribe to their service and equipment. My TIVO is connected to an attic Antenna. If I did not have TIVO I could not watch OTA stations as my TV does not have a digital tuner.
I understand that TIVO does not provide the OTA signal to my TV, but the equipement that I rent from TIVO enables me to have access to that content.
All Aereo is allowing me to do is rent access to an antenna and servers that will deliver the OTA broadcast to my house via the internet.



IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
»www.bestbuy.com/site/KCPI+-+Digi···=1953594

The fact that Aereo's "antennas" are not on the same site as the subscriber makes it retransmission.

And with TiVo, you can buy a lifetime subscription.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL
said by IowaCowboy:

The fact that Aereo's "antennas" are not on the same site as the subscriber makes it retransmission.

So wait, you're telling me that I would have to pay the broadcasters to watch OTA TV if I made my own antenna out of coat hangars and tinfoil and put it in a tree in my neighbor's yard because I don't have a tree in mine (with his permission of course)? Oh, and it just so happen that I gave my neighbor a 6-pack for being so gracious too.

I think not.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
Aereo is a shady operation in my opinion as they have no respect for copyright law. It all boils down to copyright law as Aereo has no right to rebroadcast, resell, or retransmit the content without the express written consent of the content holders. And Aereo should blackout any sportscasts while their operation lasts as the big sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NHL) can be a real angry rattlesnake when it comes to copyright law.

--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL
This would be a non-issue if BROADCASTERS made their FREELY AVAILABLE CONTENT easy to use in OTHER FORMATS other than just OTA BROADCAST...

You know, in stead of trying to shut down every every alternative means of viewing said content... maybe actually trying to innovate and embrace it.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to IowaCowboy
why yes, please tell us your interpretation of the law (which is completely wrong). It's not like we have judges whose job it is to interpret the law who disagree with you or anything, right?

/facepalm

your opinion of legal matters does not matter here. just leave.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to IowaCowboy
why is aereo magically shady? they're operating legally and judges affirmed that. i'm still waiting for your argument instead of moving on and accepting your own BS as fact.

the shady person is you. who clearly has a vested interest, a lack of understanding, or a deliberate lack of understanding. none of which are good for the discussion.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
said by dfxmatt:

why is aereo magically shady? they're operating legally and judges affirmed that. i'm still waiting for your argument instead of moving on and accepting your own BS as fact.

the shady person is you. who clearly has a vested interest, a lack of understanding, or a deliberate lack of understanding. none of which are good for the discussion.

Then why does Aereo get a free ride to retransmit OTA signals when cable/Directv/Dish have to pay for the privilege of reselling/retransmitting a broadcast signal. Retransmitting is defined as picking up a signal and retransmitting it to another location whether it be IP, DBS, or CATV.

I think the one antenna per customer rule dates back to when appartment buildings would lease rooftop antennas to tenants and needs to be clarified (updated). A lot of the rules were written before the Internet became widespread.

I think this case will ultimately end up before the US Supreme Court so lets just sit back, relax and let the legal eagles do their work. But I am willing to bet that Aereo will settle and negotiate a licensing agreement with the broadcasters/content producers (especially the sports leagues like I've said above can be rattlesnakes with copyright law).

--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.


voipguy

join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY
Why do Cable and Satellite providers have to pay broadcasters for FREE OVER THE AIR channels at all?????

That is the correct question.

If broadcasters want to shut down their transmitters and leave the public airwaves that they get to use FOR FREE, that is fine with me. Then, they can compete with other cable programmers on price for carriage.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
said by voipguy:

Why do Cable and Satellite providers have to pay broadcasters for FREE OVER THE AIR channels at all?????

That is the correct question.

If broadcasters want to shut down their transmitters and leave the public airwaves that they get to use FOR FREE, that is fine with me. Then, they can compete with other cable programmers on price for carriage.

The OTA broadcasts may be free for the end user (the at-home viewer) to receive with an appropriate antenna but if someone (whether Aereo or Comcast) wants to receive that free signal and resell it for a profit, then the broadcasters have every right to receive a cut of that profit and that is where copyright law comes in.

The TV station's (WWLP, WGGB, WSHM) hands are tied by the networks (CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC) who's are tied by the content producers (some are the networks themselves but some are third parties like the NFL and MLB) who actually own the copyright and content.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

Then why does Aereo get a free ride to retransmit OTA signals when cable/Directv/Dish have to pay for the privilege of reselling/retransmitting a broadcast signal. Retransmitting is defined as picking up a signal and retransmitting it to another location whether it be IP, DBS, or CATV.

So then you would also say that Sling is shady and disrespecting copyright law for retransmitting content to you through their website?

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

The OTA broadcasts may be free for the end user (the at-home viewer) to receive with an appropriate antenna but if someone (whether Aereo or Comcast) wants to receive that free signal and resell it for a profit, then the broadcasters have every right to receive a cut of that profit and that is where copyright law comes in.

Why? The cable/satellite companies are increasing viewership and that leads to the station being able to charge more for advertising which makes them more profits.

It's really no different than me buying a book and reselling it later for a profit. Perfectly legal and allowed!

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to IowaCowboy
Since when is this a free ride?

Aereo doesn't have to negotiate a thing. This has been said repeatedly and affirmed in court. They are operating legally under the law, they do not have to ask permission. That's how it works. We do not live in a permission culture.

I'm willing to bet Aereo will not negotiate, because they are not obligated to do so (and are making a killing, the free press given by companies like fox is immeasurable). If you think Aereo is going to have to even care about broadcasts, I think you forget who has the bargaining chips.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
reply to IowaCowboy
No, they do not have such a right, and consequently that is not being argued in court. There are broadcast agreements in place but guess what? Aereo's service is not a broadcast, but it would be if it were not for this ridiculous legal loophole in the first place.

please get your arguments straight. It is explicitly clear you do not understand the situation.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to IowaCowboy
By your definition. Which by the way, does not make it THE definition.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to CXM_Splicer
said by CXM_Splicer:

said by IowaCowboy:

Then why does Aereo get a free ride to retransmit OTA signals when cable/Directv/Dish have to pay for the privilege of reselling/retransmitting a broadcast signal. Retransmitting is defined as picking up a signal and retransmitting it to another location whether it be IP, DBS, or CATV.

So then you would also say that Sling is shady and disrespecting copyright law for retransmitting content to you through their website?

to no shock at all, Sling was once sued by MLB. the lawsuit failed but the piss poor MLB excuse was that people could have friends setup a slingbox and get around blackouts.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
reply to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:


The fact that Aereo's "antennas" are not on the same site as the subscriber makes it retransmission.

If you go back in history to the origin of cable TV, it was an Antenna that was placed somewhere (such as on a hill) and used to feed TVs that could not receive the signal directly (since it is in a valley with the hill blocking the signal). Thus it fits your definition of Antenna in one place and TV in another. Why does the use of the Internet as opposed to a long cable change the situation?