dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
29

guppy_fish
Premium Member
join:2003-12-09
Palm Harbor, FL

1 recommendation

guppy_fish

Premium Member

A "Surpreme" can of worms ...

I took the time and read the filing, its legitimate and shows that the supreme court has no clue on just how intertwined and convoluted the copyright laws are.

What they are saying is that the court claims they are cable system as a basis for the broadcasters to win the case, what the broadcasters didn't look forward to what that would mean

1) Aero gets to sell legally the content, broadcasters have to license the content, otherwise they Aereo can just provided it until broadcasters comply with law.

2) if Aero time shifts, then they can keep there original model as its no longer a public viewing

Whats really interesting here, and I think cable company's will be very interested is in today's current model, the content providers just turn off the link when the contract is not in effect, hence stopping the cable company's even though the law allows them to continue to offer content.

Aereo is saying, you can't have it both ways and there technically correct, don't want to license to content, fine we will provide via OTA until you do, all 100% legal ( and only applicable to cable companies, which until the ruling Aereo wasn't one )
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

I read Aereo's claim, and it is interesting. The Supreme Court seems to have declared Aereo a cable company. Section 111 - »www.law.cornell.edu/usco ··· t/17/111 seems complicated. Aereo may be able to continue as a cable company, which would be odd, in that it has no cables to any home.

I wonder if this couldn't return to the Supreme Court.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

said by pandora:

I read Aereo's claim, and it is interesting. The Supreme Court seems to have declared Aereo a cable company.

Actually they did.

(3) Because Aereo's activities are substantially similar to those of the CATV companies that Congress amended the Act to reach, Aereo is not simply an equipment provider. Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs, many of which are copyrighted, virtually as they are being broadcast. Aereo uses its own equipment, housed in a centralized warehouse, outside of its users' homes. By means of its technology, Aereo's system "receive[s] programs that have been released to the public and carr[ies] them by private channels to additional viewers." Fortnightly, supra, at 400.

This Court recognizes one particular difference between Aereo's system and the cable systems at issue in Fortnightly and Teleprompter: The systems in those cases transmitted constantly, whereas Aereo's system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that she wants to watch a program. In other cases involving different kinds of service or technology providers, a user's involvement in the operation of the provider's equipment and selection of the content transmitted may well bear on whether the provider performs within the meaning of the Act. But given Aereo's overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here.