dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed
« Back to piracy
This is a sub-selection from RIP


nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

reply to desarollo

Re: RIP

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.



cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

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...
--
Splat


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

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



r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

2 recommendations

reply to nothing00

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
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


NYDude25

join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY

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


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to rradina

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


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to NYDude25

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.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

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"



r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to NYDude25

said by NYDude25:

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

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.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

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"

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

Aereo only leased equipment.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ITALIAN926

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


NYDude25

join:2007-08-23
Massapequa, NY
reply to r81984

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.


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to r81984

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



PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Manchester, NH

Only if said "tv tuner" is in a remote location transmitting its contents via IP for a fee.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to NYDude25

Except they aren't retransmitting, just accessing.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

So receiving the OTA signal, transcoding it, possibly storing it, and then sending it over the Internet isn't retransmitting it?



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

Not re-transmission in the way that retransmission (and fees) are defined under the current rules. It was a remote access antenna. IMHO has zero difference whether Aereo's antenna picked up the signal then encoded it to get it to me or I pick up signal with my own antenna and then encode in my devices, just a different method of delivery.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by KrK:

IMHO

SCOTUS says "You are wrong!"
Find a test case that undoes this ruling AND proves your point AND get it to the supreme court.

3 very difficult tasks individually, nearly impossible in triplicate, and they could still refuse to revisit.

You are now officially screwed.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

SCOTUS is clearly wrong in this case.



chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
reply to PaulHikeS2

Slingbox!


ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

And they ruled Slingbox as legal.



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to r81984

said by r81984:

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

Its the Supreme Court, the only realistic way to change the ruling is for congress to enact a new law, and the President to sign it.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.--

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

I think they tried to make this horrible ruling as narrow as possible, but we'll see where else it rears it's ugly head.