  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | There is a difference While Cablevision has paid to broadcast network shows, Aereo has not.
There is no free lunch, move along! | |
|
 | | | Re: There is a difference Yes, Cablevision pays to BROADCAST network shows, as it should according to current laws.
Aereo on the other hand SINGLECAST network shows just as users do in their homes with an antenna connected to the home in some way. Just because the antenna has grown in length does not change the fact that it is still a singlecast.
I personally would argue that cable and sat should not have to pay to broadcast channels that are available free OTA. They are mutually beneficial to each other so it should be a wash. | |
|
| | | | Re: There is a difference How can it be different if Aereo is arguing that it's the same as Cablevision's network DVR case?
Looks like Aereo wants to have its cake and eat it. | |
|
| | | | | Re: There is a difference Cablevision does not singlecast their live channels, they broadcast them which is why they pay. They singlecast their remote DVR, at least that was their argument, was it not?
Aereo is SINGLECAST entirely. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: There is a difference I think it's not about broadcast vs. singlecast. The Network DVR case is about providing content to customers who have paid for access to the content, and there is a retrans agreement in place with the content owners, including the use of DVRs. The question decided there is does it have to be a physical DVR on premise at the customer's home. Aereo is quite different, in that there is no retrans agreement in place. The question with Aereo is, are they doing retrans, or are they really just a shared antenna. I think it's cut and dried that they are doing retrans, because they modify the stream, and also provide time shifting services. I see no way this ruling won't go against Aereo. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: There is a difference I would disagree with your statement as they are not retransmitting anything any more than you retransmit if you have an antenna in your attic. The antenna in this case just happens to be further away.
Same would hold true for the recording and time shifting. You can do that in your home right now without the need for you to enter into a retransmit agreement with them, so why would you need it now? | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: There is a difference Take a look at the amicus curae brief filed by Cablevision (it's in the techdirt link from the story). It's quite interesting. In contrast with the derision/sarcasm in the reporting on this, it actually looks quite solid to me.
Reminds me of the derision/sarcasm/dismissive attitude out there around the legality of Obamacare, but then when it actually went to the Supreme Court, guess what, it WAS a real question. Whoops, pundits wrong again.
It's really important not to let your views on an industry or a law color your analysis of the legal challenges. If you do, you will probably not foresee accurately or plan your strategy and approach correctly.
The question is not what YOU think "retrans" is, but what the LEGAL DEFINITION of it is. It has everything to do with public vs. private performance, and with whether retrans agreements are in place or not. Read the briefs. Then decide how you think it's going to go. Personally, I don't think Aereo has a chance in hell.
Does that mean I think Aereo is bad and the affiliates are good? No, it's just an analysis of the legal issues vs. the law and how i think the courts will come down. | |
|
| | | | | CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by MyDogHsFleas:I think it's not about broadcast vs. singlecast. The Network DVR case is about providing content to customers who have paid for access to the content, and there is a retrans agreement in place with the content owners, including the use of DVRs. The question decided there is does it have to be a physical DVR on premise at the customer's home. Aereo is quite different, in that there is no retrans agreement in place. The question with Aereo is, are they doing retrans, or are they really just a shared antenna. I think it's cut and dried that they are doing retrans, because they modify the stream, and also provide time shifting services. I see no way this ruling won't go against Aereo.
The Cablevision remote DVR case was based on two questions... 1) Does Cablevision's storage of the program constitute copyright infringement, and 2) Is the playback of that copy considered a 'public performance'. For both questions, the court answered "No." In the first instance it was because the subscriber is the one doing the copying... not Cablevision. Cablevision merely owns the machine. In the second instance it was because the recording is not available to 'the public' but only to the subscriber who made the recording possible. There was nothing mentioned about the content being paid for or retrans agreements, those issues didn't come up at all.
I think the question that will be argued is: Are they a 'Cable Company' which should be paying retrans agreement fees. Or are they just connecting an antenna to an already allowed remote DVR system. Under Aero's proposed system, would it be possible to watch TV live? If so, I would think they are dangerously close to being a 'Cable Company'.
»www.scribd.com/doc/4483955/Cable···Decision | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: There is a difference Nice CXM. Retrans agreement is a big point in CV's amicus curae brief in the Aereo appeal, FYI. | |
|
| | | | | |  BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA | Aereo's system is already up and running. Yes you can watch live TV. They've created lots of tiny antennas so that every subscriber has his/her own. So their claim is that they're renting a remote antenna to the user. | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: There is a difference said by Bootes:Aereo's system is already up and running. Yes you can watch live TV. They've created lots of tiny antennas so that every subscriber has his/her own. So their claim is that they're renting a remote antenna to the user.
Then how are they not an Internet cable company? Isn't that what cable does... they provide an antenna and extend that to the customer? The customer pays a subscription which is basically a lease on the antenna, equipment, and cable wire to get it there. Granted there are also lots of channels that have nothing to do with OTA but what is the definition of 'retransmission'? Are they solely differentiated by the fact that it is a personal antenna vs. a shared one? | |
|
| | | | | | | | BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | Re: There is a difference Yes, their argument is that they're simply renting an antenna and a cloud DVR to the customer. Every client has control of their own antenna to pick which channel to watch and recieves their own stream of the channel. They even require the customer to live/view the content in the area where they would have been able to receive the OTA signal. They check this via credit card billing address, IP, and GPS signal if available.
The difference with a cable company is that they receive one stream of a channel and then duplicate it to all of their clients.
So if 5 cable customers are watching Fox, the cable company is still receiving one Fox signal and retransmitting that signal to it's 5 customers. 1 in 5 out.
If 5 Aereo subscribers are watching Fox, they're each connecting to their antenna and tuning it to Fox. 5 in 5 out. | |
|
| | | | | BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA
2 edits | They aren't doing a shared antenna which is the whole point of what's supposed to make them legal. Every Aereo customer has his/her own antenna at Aereo HQ. Aereo says they're not retransmitting, but renting an antenna to people that they use the Internet to connect to.
Is a Slingbox legal? Isn't it still legal if I pay someone $5 a month to keep that Slingbox in their basement with an antenna and use their electricity/Internet connection? | |
|
| | gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Your using technobabble doublespeak, just like aereo tried to do.
The judge didnt fall for it last time, I doubt it will fly again.
--
Let them eat FIBER! | |
|
| | | | | Re: There is a difference I am speaking facts. Singlecast is not broadcast in any way whatsoever. | |
|
| | | | bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | Re: There is a difference unicast.....singlecast isn't a networking term.
Unicast, broadcast and multicast. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: There is a difference I know what the terms are for networking, but thanks for the lesson. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| This shows a basic misunderstanding of copyright. Even when performed publicly, copyrighted content is still copyrighted, and the copyright owner still has the rights to any other use of that public performance.
For example, you go to a free concert, record it, and then sell the recording on the Internet without getting permission. That's a copyright violation.
Same thing with OTA broadcasts. Just because you can pick it up OTA and record or retransmit it, doesn't mean it's legal to do so.
You also don't understand the local stations' business model. They get revenue from both retrans rights agreements, and also ads. However they only get the ad revenue if the ratings services can track their shows' ratings. Random, uncontrolled retrans isn't tracked and therefore generates zero incremental ad revenue for the locals. | |
|
| | | | | Re: There is a difference This has nothing to do with a public performance, you are injecting things that have nothing to do with this into it.
I do understand local stations business model and frankly could care less as they adapt or die. Being this is not a retrans question, your last sentence does not apply. | |
|
| | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by MyDogHsFleas:Same thing with OTA broadcasts. Just because you can pick it up OTA and record or retransmit it, doesn't mean it's legal to do so. How far away from your home are you allowed to have your antenna? Can you put it in the corner of your yard, 50 feet from your house?
If you live in a hilly area and own a lot of property, can you mount it on a hill 500 feet from your house?
What if the hill is owned by a neighbor and putting it there is the only way that you can get reception, can you pay them a monthly fee for using their land for your antenna?
What if the antenna was already there, but the neighbors long ago stopped using it and switched to cable, would it be legal to pay them a monthly fee to use their antenna (which they are NOT using)?
At what point does using a dedicated antenna become illegal? | |
|
| | | BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA
3 edits | Antenna TV is always untrackable, Aereo doesn't change this. Aereo would actually make it much easier to track viewing habits than with current antenna customers.
If Aereo customers don't currently count in the ratings, the answer is to start counting them. Not to act like Aereo is stealing their money by making a service whose users they ignore. It's not Aereo's fault or problem, but Nielsen, the advertisers, and the channels. | |
|
| CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | I think the company's purpose is to let the users broadcast shows to themselves. | |
|
| | | Yes, big difference. Unfortunately that's not how the headlines roll here.
People have got to face it that TV production is not cheap. People who work in the TV industry need to be paid and that money has to come from somewhere.
Investors who own shares in media companies also want a healthy return on investment.
They're not going to give up control so easily. | |
|
| | DodgePremium
join:2002-11-27 | Re: There is a difference said by fifty nine:Yes, big difference. Unfortunately that's not how the headlines roll here.
People have got to face it that TV production is not cheap. People who work in the TV industry need to be paid and that money has to come from somewhere.
it comes from commercials. Technically everyone can watch these channels OTA, so now the whole question is about the location of the antenna itself. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: There is a difference The problem is that the locals do NOT get paid for commercials on Aereo, because there is no ratings tracking. No ratings tracking = no ratings = no ad revenue for those incremental viewers on Aereo. THAT is the base reason why they are suing Aereo, because they get zero revenue from them. OTA viewers are tracked by the ratings services. Cable/Sat viewers of the retrans locals are also tracked. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: There is a difference Well they could cut a deal with Areeo to get accurate ratings data from all its users.
But then thay have to admit that the numbers they get from Nealson are grossly over inflated and that commercials should cost a lot less.
Getting accurate ratings data back to broadcasters is trivial with todays tech, so why are networks still using the fuzzy math that Nealson provides if not to keep their business model afloat?
--
no .sig found, please restart your browser. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: There is a difference Whether Nielsen is accurate or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
Sure, the affiliates could figure out how to get tracking from Aereo. But why should they? Bigger fish to fry for them (the Aereo fish).
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's car is stolen and he ends up talking to the thief and giving him car care tips. | |
|
| | | | CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | With bi-directional cable boxes it is a simple matter for a cable company to see what you are watching but how does a rating service track OTA viewers and why wouldn't it be the same for Aero? | |
|
| | | | | | OTA is a one way street and they have no idea who or how much someone watches a channel. The only way they would know is if the person agreed to be monitored and that information was feed back to them. Which can still be done with Aereo.
So are you now going to scream that OTA is "stealing" from them too? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: There is a difference Dude, stop the crap. (a) I am far from screaming. (b) do your research OK? Do you have any idea how Nielson even works? Yes, they DO do ratings on OTA. | |
|
| | | | | | each aereo user has their "own" antenna. how is it different from other the OTA user other than the "cord" is longer. | |
|
| | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by MyDogHsFleas:The problem is that the locals do NOT get paid for commercials on Aereo, because there is no ratings tracking. No ratings tracking = no ratings = no ad revenue for those incremental viewers on Aereo. And how do they track the ratings for people who put antennas on their roofs? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: There is a difference Research before post please. Hint: how were TV ratings tracked in the past before there was cable, and everyone had an antenna? | |
|
| | | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: There is a difference said by MyDogHsFleas:Research before post please. Hint: how were TV ratings tracked in the past before there was cable, and everyone had an antenna? So if people put up an antenna, ratings can tracked, but if they use one of Aero's antennas they can't? | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: There is a difference said by Rekrul:said by MyDogHsFleas:Research before post please. Hint: how were TV ratings tracked in the past before there was cable, and everyone had an antenna? So if people put up an antenna, ratings can tracked, but if they use one of Aero's antennas they can't? Not can't, but aren't. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: There is a difference said by MyDogHsFleas:said by Rekrul:So if people put up an antenna, ratings can tracked, but if they use one of Aero's antennas they can't? Not can't, but aren't. Seems more like the TV industry's failing than a real problem with Aero. | |
|
| | | | | | said by MyDogHsFleas:The problem is that the locals do NOT get paid for commercials on Aereo, because there is no ratings tracking. No ratings tracking = no ratings = no ad revenue for those incremental viewers on Aereo. THAT is the base reason why they are suing Aereo, because they get zero revenue from them. OTA viewers are tracked by the ratings services. Cable/Sat viewers of the retrans locals are also tracked.
How do they track ratings if you're using an OTA antenna? | |
|
| | | | How did TV survive before cable and sat? Oh that's right, ads and product placements.
Investors can want it all, but that doesnt mean they are going to get what they want. | |
|
| | |
See 16 replies to this post |
| tkb8
join:2006-05-10
Carnation, WA | A giant FU to all the broadcasters. Just surf the web and completely ignore them and their advertiser laden content. Watch them wither and die... | |
|
| | previous case The problem is that cablevision won because it was based on an old recording case . I think it was a supreme court ruling on vcrs .
This is completely different because it deals with OTA.
IF aereo wins this would effect the cable companies having to pay for serving 2479 11 and the other basic channels.
This is why aereo won't win. It would effect the whole industry. | |
|
| BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | Re: previous case Cable companies would still have to pay (assuming the local channel wants the to) to rebroadcast the local channels. The cable companies have one antenna picking up a local channel that they then send to all of their customers.
Aereo's point about the Cablevision DVR case was that the courts said it would be legal for a customer's DVR to be located at a Cablevision building and accessed remotely by the television viewer. Every customer still has his/her own "DVR" and their own recordings.
This is basically what Aereo is doing, but instead of cable TV going into the DVR, it's an antenna. Every Aereo customer gets his/her own antenna and DVR that the customer can access over the Internet. There's no question that this would be legal if done from your house. Aereo's saying why can't they be located in our office, like the CV DVR. | |
|
| | | | Re: previous case I guess we can rationalize it either way, but I'd bet if Aereo wins (unlikely), the lawsuits will fly as cablecos and iptv telcos sue to get out of retrans. It is huge $.
Cablevision and Aereo are very different situations. Aereo is just as controversial without the DVR service.
In Cablevision's case, the rights to the programming itself were not in question. The legal challenge was about the delivery and operation of the layered DVR service.
With Aereo, the right to the programming is the most important issue. Aereo appears to be aggregating and distributing a product they don't have the rights for. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·MSN
| So let me get this straight... If I receive TV over the air from an antenna atop my house and connect a piece of coax that runs to my TV I am 100% legal - yet if I use an RF to IP converter at my antenna and connect a piece of Cat 5 to my TV set then I am 'streaming' and need to pay a special fee? How does THAT make any sense at all? Now the type of wire I use makes a difference between me being a copyright infringer or not? | |
|
|
|
