Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo → RIP

And so an innovative company will (presumably) bite the dust. I hope that, contrary to their public statements, Aereo has a Plan B, but I'm not holding my breath.

I KNEW this would happen !! , now they get to negotiate like the MSO's. They still potentially have a product to sell, and pay carriage like everyone else.

not only that, but it ensures that there will be no innovation in the spehere for decades to come. The SCOTUS is officially bought out.

I agree with your premise, but I was hopeful Aero would win and eliminate the whole retransmission fee scam.

Local broadcasters have found a lucrative revenue stream for doing nothing more than permitting pay TV customers the convenience of not having to maintain their own antenna. And that arrangement is entirely unfair as customers can't opt-out, even if they maintain their own systems for receiving the signal off-air (DirecTV once permitted this).

From the dissent:

III.
Guilt By Resemblance
The Court’s conclusion that Aereo performs boils down to the following syllogism: (1) Congress amended the Act to overrule our decisions holding that cable systems do not perform when they retransmit over-the-air broadcasts;4 (2) Aereo looks a lot like a cable system; therefore (3) Aereo performs. Ante, at 4–10. That reasoning suffers from a trio of defects.
....
Second, the Court’s reasoning fails on its own terms because there are material differences between the cable systems at issue in Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U. S. 394 (1974), and Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390 (1968), on the one hand and Aereo on the other. The former (which were then known as community-antenna television systems) captured the full range of broadcast signals and forwarded them to all subscribers at all times, whereas Aereo transmits only specific programs selected by the user, at specific times selected by the user. The Court acknowledges this distinction but blithely concludes that it “does not make a critical difference.” Ante, at 10. Even if that were true, the Court fails to account for other salient differences between the two technologies. 5 Though cable systems started out essentially as dumb pipes that routed signals from point A to point B, see ante,at 5, by the 1970’s, that kind of service “ ‘no longer exist[ed],’ ” Brief for Petitioners in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Teleprompter Corp., O. T. 1973, No. 72–1633, p. 22. At the time of our Teleprompter decision, cable companies “perform[ed] the same functions as ‘broadcasters’ by deliberately selecting and importing distant signals, originating programs, [and] selling commercials,” id., at 20, thus making them curators of content—more akin to video-on-demand services than copy shops. So far as the record reveals, Aereo does none of those things.

Wrong. Why do you think all other live streaming services have failed? The broadcasters will not license/negotiate with any exclusively OTT service provider, period.

/M

Someone may do that, but it won't be AEREO, if they have any cash it will be taken by those they infringed on.
Anybody need a "warehouse" full of mini antennas? SETI? really anyone? cheap, really really cheap

lol@SETI

Surely been paid off by their lobbyist buddies.
As usual.
I guess that since corporations are people, they feel that they are still doing their work for the people.
AFAIC, corporations are not people, and the country has lost its way, and is now not a country of WE THE PEOPLE, but one of them, the corporations.

More likely is that you are just plain wrong in thinking Aero wasn't in fact stealing and reselling a product legally owned by others. Opinions that differ from yours (who obviously has no training in law) are not always based on fraud and bribes.

I know that's hard for you to digest but split decisions on the Supreme Court have been a fact of life since the start of this country. Your efforts to debase their efforts based solely on your own limited knowledge is not at all helpful. The solution lies with Congress and not the Courts. A rather common outcome if the truth be known.

There are pills for paranoia you know.

everyone knew this would happen. It's well known who the government works for.

No, you hoped it would happen, just like I hoped it would not.

So, if the broadcasters have succeeded in killing Aereo (or raised their price to the point where it's no longer cost-effective, which is all the same to me): When the crappy digital OTA signal goes south, we simply will not watch TV. *shrug* In a way: I'll be just as happy. TV's a wasteland, for the most part, anyway.

I can guarantee you that neither the broadcasters nor the subscription TV people will see any money, from me, for this.

Jim

This "scheme" is what cable companies fought for, with help from Ted Turner. They didn't like that they had to carry every broadcast station in the area, and the stations couldn't charge a fee. Thus was born the concept of retransmission consent and stations could optionally charge a fee.

Like it or not, TV is not free. It costs real money and it is an expensive business to be in.

Ads are not going to pay for the whole thing. Ad skipping is way out of hand, for starters, and ad revenue is down. So it only makes sense to ask viewers to chip in via their cable companies.

With this decision, OTA TV will probably live a little longer (stations would not go cable only as some have threatened) and TV station owners can protect their business. You the viewer can STILL view programming free over the air.

Thank you for that. It is clear that Aereo, had a nifty antenna system but was in fact, planning on reselling broadcasting with income from subscriptions and ad-placement.
I side with the SCOTUS decision. How much did this cost us, I wonder...

I worked in local TV for 20 years, I know it isn't free. I also know what a bunch of utter dirt-bags run the industry. This is evident by occupying valuable spectrum, using it to air infomercials and paid programming masquerading as public information and then asking to be paid for carriage of same. Fifteen years ago these same people came up with the concept of dropping 1 frame every second out of NTSC programming and after an hour, selling the accumulated minute for advertising. Imagine that, duping their other customers and the network out of time so they could turn around and sell it.

I, the viewer as you put it, do get their programming over the air for free. But these people have used legislative and regulatory wrangling to inject themselves into a service and I have no choice but to subsidize their programming choices in order to get programming I want regardless of pay TV provider. This is the whole basis of a tying contract and I am baffled as to why it has persisted for as long as it has.

If ads do not pay for the "whole thing", then the model is broken. However, you might want to check as to what the profit margin is on a local TV station before you run with the idea that they are hurting.

How did you get that from the dissent? Did you read the last sentence?

NOW all leasing companies are illegal.
You can no longer lease any equipment at all.

Aereo is just a leasing company so that ruling does not apply to them. It would apply to the Aereo cable company which does not exist.

If this ruling stands then ALL leasing companies in the US are now illegal

+1

And record content owner profits and cable rates are not a sign?
Signing up for billion dollar sports packages (which is real time ads) not a sign?

And to say "just" ads can't pay. Up until a few years ago retrans fees were very low, so absolutely.

Two other cases in point: The internet, and Google.

Last time I checked Google built an empire out of selling ads. I never paid a dime for a Google service...directly.

The issue w/ cable is that since it is fat, dumb, happy and monopolistic it has failed to innovate in the last 30 years.

Even a DVR and VOD are something I could have done w/ a VCR or two in the 80's..

My antenna can't store 60 hours of recorded tv for me by giving it $8 a month. But Aereo, the "leasing" company can.

When you go in with a redeposition it is hard to understand what is written and reply intelligently.

If your apartment building leased an antenna or just space on the roof for an antenna to you for $8 a month so you can hook up your tivo, then you would be doing the EXACT same thing as Aereo.

Aereo was not leasing an antenna or just space on tenants roof for $8 a month so they can hook up a tivo.
So much for "exact"

Wait, so now you are saying it is illegal for a company to lease an antenna and dvr because that is all Aereo does.

Even the supreme court did not say what Aereo does is not illegal. They just incorrect said they look like a cable company so it cant be legal. The supreme courts logic shows a huge lack of understand of technology and equipment leasing.

Aereo was leasing an individual antenna, turner software, and dvr hard drive space all on a long cord.

Aereo only leased equipment.

You are right they werent and if anyone does they will be in violation of this ruling.

I'm not saying anything is illegal. Cablevision "leases" a DVR to their customers to record tv each month and they have plenty of customers doing it. Aereo could do the same thing, they just need to pay the retransmission fees. It's simple.

Exactly! Anyone who rents any form of "tv tuner" is now breaking the law.

Only if said "tv tuner" is in a remote location transmitting its contents via IP for a fee.

Might be that both the broadcasters and Aereo have incentive to move forward with a licensing agreement if Aereo is cashless - and do it fast. Everybody makes out.