dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Aereo Scores Another Legal Win
2nd Circuit Court Won't Review Previous Ruling
by Karl Bode 06:24PM Tuesday Jul 16 2013
Aereo has scored a third significant legal win with the news that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York won't be reviewing its previous ruling from last April that declared Aereo's streaming TV service did not violate copyright law. Broadcasters appealed the ruling in their attempt to have Aereo shut down, but the court has made it clear they're tired of talking about the matter. "The Second Circuit’s denial of our request for an 'en banc' hearing, while disappointing was not unexpected," Fox said in a prepared statement. "We will now review our options and determine the appropriate course of action, which include seeking a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court and proceeding to a full trial on the merits of the case."

view:
topics flat nest 
xenophon

join:2007-09-17

Meanwhile, Google is looking for..

..deals to stream cable content.

»www.engadget.com/2013/07/16/goog···e=feedly

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

I'm with the broadcasters on this one

Retransmitting a signal requires the consent of the broadcasters. Cable/satellite companies have to pay for carrying broadcasters signals and I think Aereo should have to do the same.

Hopefully the US Supreme Court sides with the broadcasters.

My point of view supports a level playing field. I think if Aereo can get away with free retransmission, than I think cable/satellite providers should not have to compensate broadcasters either.

We already pay enough for cable. DirecTV is actually cheaper than Comcast and has better picture quality but both DirecTV and Comcast (along with every other cable and satellite provider) has to pay for the privilege of carrying the broadcaster's signals on their system.

I'm surprised the big sports leagues aren't in on this. They can be rattlesnakes with intellectual property rights, especially the NFL. And many of their games are transmitted on broadcast TV (and the stations pay a boatload of money for the privilege) and the transmission rights are dictated by the copyright holder. I think if the broadcasters lose, I think the sports leagues will be next in line to sue.
--
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.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

2 recommendations

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

said by IowaCowboy:

I think if Aereo can get away with free retransmission, than I think cable/satellite providers should not have to compensate broadcasters either.

They shouldn't and that's the point.
mrwiggles

join:2013-06-10
Sherman, TX
Retransmissions requires taking 1 signal and retransmitting it to a lot of people. Areo is taking thousands of transmissions and relaying it to thousands of subscribers. One transmissions per subscriber. This is not the same in any way to Cable or Satellite.

The network execs are scared because they know that cable companies will follow suit and their extortionate network contracts are going to go bye bye.

GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

My guess is they're confused by terminology. Cable companies "rebroadcast"; Aereo doesn't. I expect the broadcasters will continue to see their case as having "merits" until the SCOTUS tells them otherwise (which won't actually convince them--they'll still continue to whine about it).
8744675

join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA

1 recommendation

I have every right to receive the free OTA signals broadcast by TV stations. How I choose to set up my antenna is not relevant. Aereo is not retransmitting anything, they're facilitating my real-time OTA reception. I can put an antenna on my house, but since i can't get a decent signal at my home without a very tall mast (which is only 6 miles from the transmitter), I can get a better signal by letting Aereo manage my antenna for me.
steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
said by IowaCowboy:

Retransmitting a signal requires the consent of the broadcasters. Cable/satellite companies have to pay for carrying broadcasters signals and I think Aereo should have to do the same.

Hopefully the US Supreme Court sides with the broadcasters.

My point of view supports a level playing field. I think if Aereo can get away with free retransmission, than I think cable/satellite providers should not have to compensate broadcasters either.

That's the problem. It's *not* a level playing field.

If you can pick up a free tv signal with nothing more than an OTA antenna why should anyone have to pay for that signal? I always thought this whole charge for carriage thing was a little wacked.

As long as you are not inserting your own commercials I think a broadcaster, who has a broadcast license in the public interest should not be able to control who watches their signal or how. It's *not* pay TV.

If they want to keep someone from watching it they should give up their broadcast license, turn off their transmitter and go cable only, then they can control it. Charge for it, keep it all for themselves and not let anyone see it. Whatever they want.

If they broadcast it on the public airwaves, which they do not own, they should not be paid if someone hires a company like Aereo, a cable or satellite firm, whatever to bring them the signal for their convenience.

That seems fair to me. I don't think broadcasters getting paid by cable firms is reasonable at all. The congress should put a stop to that, free carriage should be the cost of that broadcast license.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

said by steevo22:

If you can pick up a free tv signal with nothing more than an OTA antenna why should anyone have to pay for that signal? I always thought this whole charge for carriage thing was a little wacked.

My question exactly! The cable companies are selling the signal. If they gave it away for free, I would agree with you on carriage fees. If you create something and choose to give it to your neighbor for free does that mean anyone that wants to sell it should be allowed to take it?

Aereo is not in the business of selling signals like a cable company, they lease antennas and Slingbox-like service.
steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

Who's to say they are not giving it away for free? Lifeline cable with local OTA channels only, what is that, $10 in at least some places? I know people who have that with their TWC internet which they are paying through the nose for.

I don't think they are actually charging at rates like that. Or not much.

But what most people want is all the cable only stations, the ones that are charging per subscriber for carriage.

The OTA stations should be free, it's free TV. But no fair inserting your own commercials, which I think TWC was doing. If they'd stop doing that I don't think the broadcasters are owed a dime.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

You know, I had the same discussion with someone else in here (don't remember who) that insisted that cable companies main business is reselling OTA channels and the premium content is just a 'side business'. I disagreed then and still do. His argument was one related to watching unencrypted OTA channels while only paying for Internet service; he said it was 'stealing'.

Unfortunately, they are not giving OTA away for free and have been petitioning the FCC to encrypt them to prevent what t hey see as theft of their service. I really wish the FCC would insist that cable companies could not charge for (or alter) OTA programming and tell broadcasters that, under those circumstances, they aren't entitled to carriage fees.

GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

said by CXM_Splicer:

His argument was one related to watching unencrypted OTA channels while only paying for Internet service; he said it was 'stealing'.

Yeah, there was such a big difference between paying an extra $15 for the local/basic channels in order to get that $15 discount on the Internet service. $43 is $43 no matter how you slice it. (The guy was nuts.)

Edit: Actually, I meant to say "$58 is $58..." ($43 + $15).
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
With cable though you have much more to bill for; which makes up that price. Also most cable companies now pay for those local stations. local ABC's and CBS' want $$$ for their "award winning news" and thus think they should get paid for it. So yes; with that they should be billing the customer. Especially when you add in billing, plant maintenance, truck rolls and so forth. That is NOT free by any means. Aero does NONE of that of cable. They're just co-locating your antenna and charging you a storage/locating fee. The same as a web host.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

said by TBBroadband:

With cable though you have much more to bill for; which makes up that price. Also most cable companies now pay for those local stations. local ABC's and CBS' want $$$ for their "award winning news" and thus think they should get paid for it. So yes; with that they should be billing the customer. Especially when you add in billing, plant maintenance, truck rolls and so forth. That is NOT free by any means.

I agree that NOW (that locals are charging cable providers for the content) the cable companies should be charging for locals. The problem is, they brought this on themselves by charging for locals while they were still free to them. Had they been passing the locals to the customers for free all along, I doubt there would have ever been carriage fees. And I would agree that a basic 'antenna grade' service would still have a minimum monthly bill for the fees you describe... free channels doesn't mean a free connection.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

One could argue that the MSOs never charged for the locals. You could claim they charged to ACCESS them. They still had their regular issues to deal with, maintaince, helping Grandpa set up the TV, tech support when people start getting sun spots. It's all part of the bill. So really they could have been giving away the locals especially at the prices they were at.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

Well, one could argue that... but one would have to come up with an alternate explanation for why the cable company would roll a truck ($) to install a trap if someone downgraded to Internet only service. Anyone paying for the connection already should have been entitled to the channels if there was no charge for them. The price couldn't have gone up by adding antenna service (assuming they didn't charge for them) so why spend money to roll the truck to block free content?

Sorry, cable companies have always charged people for content they didn't produce. That's what brought on this mess in the first place.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: I'm with the broadcasters on this one

I know. But this started before HSI days. and as I said, why should they give you free service if it still costs them money to maintain. I can see if you already have a service with them- such as HSI. but if you do not- then you shouldn't get anything- regardless if its free or not. Also its just not the MSOs that started this. The content owners as well. They wanted their channels carried and on lower numbers. So they got "must carry rules". Now they want it both ways. They want eye balls but at $$ they see as well. And as far as the local stations- most of them don't produce anything but local "news" to start off with. And much of it you can read online and get a full story compared to the 2 minutes of the local "news" that is for some reason always "award" winning on every station, or my favorite: "most certified accurate" and the company that does the certification is only awarding stations that are all owned by the same company.

Also the filter can come into play since even on the most basic package you still have networks that MSOs pay for- such as Disney, ABC Family, ESPN, Nick, etc. So why give away something you're paying for when it comes to that???? I can see if the most back package didn't contain anything than the locals- then yes, the tap shouldn't be locked if you're paying for a service. But not paying even $5 for the network access - then no, you shouldn't get anything.

davoice

join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
As others have said, this is not retransmission. That's what drives the broadcasters nuts. This is an antenna with a very long virtual cord.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
It's not the same. It's not a free retransmission. It's an antenna for you to use where you like, picking up free OTA content.

It's not like they stick up an antenna and then retransmit it to anyone who wants it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Ok hypothetical here

Ok say I want to watch TV via OTA but because of trees and such my reception is shitty. My next door neighbor has no trees and has a clear view and gets decent reception. And that neighbor allows me to put an antenna on his property and run a cable to my house. Am I committing copyright infringement in the networks eyes?
mrwiggles

join:2013-06-10
Sherman, TX

Re: Ok hypothetical here

No.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Ok hypothetical here

said by mrwiggles:

No.

Ok say my friend that lives in the same town 2 miles a way has great reception I don't. So I set up and antenna at his house then use slingbox or similar type device to watch at my house. Copyright infringement?
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Ok hypothetical here

said by 88615298:

said by mrwiggles:

No.

Ok say my friend that lives in the same town 2 miles a way has great reception I don't. So I set up and antenna at his house then use slingbox or similar type device to watch at my house. Copyright infringement?

There was a court case "Cablevision" in 2008 that ruled Cablevision could legally use remote DVRs to manage their customer's video. Aereo saw this ruling and developed their technology to exploit this loophole. So no, it's not copyright infringement.
crgauth

join:2004-05-18
Glen Burnie, MD
No. But if your neighbor were to put up an antenna and sell you a service, they might be.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: Ok hypothetical here

Are you saying sell him the service (access to channels) or sell him access to the antenna with the wire that runs to his house which may or may not be used to access the channels?

Leasing the actual equipment that the signal is captured on and delivered through on a 1 to 1 basis is not. The neighbor can setup 20 antennas with wires running to 20 neighbors and if each of them want to pay to gain access to one of those antennas and wires, it is their right to do so and his right to collect the money for providing that convenience.

Per their argument I shouldn't be able to use a set top box because I am "rebroadcasting" the signal from my set top to my TV through the HDMI port.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
According to the logic of their Aereo claims, YES.

Or, let's say the neighbor lets you place an antenna on his property and charges you a small fee. They'd say he's an illegal rebroadcaster.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
according to Iowa Cowboy - yes you are.

Brian_M

join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA
Reviews:
·Charter
·Windstream

Good for Aereo

But having had their service for 3 weeks today (still within the free month), I won't be spending any money on it. It's not the Aereo service either, that works pretty darn well (hangs up from time to time, where you have to go back to the guide and start playing again). It's WHAT they are making available. I guess I've been too long away from TV at just over a year. No OTA available to me... not willing to pay for what's available as the value just isn't there. I actually timed it this morning, in the 35 minutes we had Aereo on, there were commercials for 24 minutes. One of the news bits was cut short by a commercial and I swear I saw the Same commercial no less than 3 times.

Thanks, not interested. Guess we're going to be broadcast and cable-free till we can buy just we want. Ironically, Most of what we watched before is available for free, on the parent web page (have a HTPC so I can pull up web pages easily).
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: Good for Aereo

Its not Aereo doesn't control the commercials; those are from the local/national stations. They also have no control what is running on those channels. They simply provide you a place for the antenna and nothing really more but a DVR that is cloud based. Your beef is with the networks.

exocet_cm
Free at last, free at last
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:3

Please don't

tie up the Supreme Court with this bullshit.
nony
Premium
join:2012-11-17
New York, NY

4 edits

Re: Please don't

said by exocet_cm:

tie up the Supreme Court with this bullshit.

There is a dissenting opinion on this -

CHIN, Circuit Judge:
I respectfully dissent...
----
(Slight segue to your post) -
So far the industry has not challenged the "slingbox" in the courts, until very recently -
»variety.com/2013/digital/opinion···0005356/
»variety.com/2013/digital/biz/dis···0324831/

Notwithstanding, there are applications of placeshifting whcih are clearly illegal in certain jurisdictions throughout the world.

Full discosure - I sling with a locked-down version of slingbox and slingbox player that doesn't leak your viewing info as both components do - out of the box. - Let the buyer beware!

Back on track - the Supremes may be forced to deal with this (as has been suggested).

Update: The battle continues with Aerokiller - in the DC District Court
»dockets.justia.com/docket/distri···/160135/
»docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di···69600371

-nony

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by exocet_cm:

tie up the Supreme Court with this bullshit.

Considering the case where Hollywood tried to get the VCR banned because it was tool for piracy went all the way to the Supreme Court I can see this going all the way. new generation of execs but still act the same for the last 60 years.
XJakeX

join:2005-03-05
Coventry, RI

antenna by the month

I can see why the court decided this way. If Aereo is offering only those channels that you could pick up unnencrypted with either a rooftop antenna or a satellite dish, then there's really no difference than you setting up your own equipment, or paying someone else (Aereo) a monthly fee to do it for you. You're only paying for the antenna to get free OTA signals.

While I don't watch much TV anymore due to the intrusive nature of the 18-20 minutes (and sometimes more) per hour of commercials, and the unnecessary network logos on the screen all the time ruining the entertainment value, the little I do watch of broadcast TV, I get OTA with a rooftop antenna. The rest I get commercial free from streaming services. But what worries me is that eventually, even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, the corporate conglomerates that own all the channels will bribe the FCC or Congress into changing the law, making free unnencrypted OTA go away entirely. This would be a sad day, indeed. But if they see Aereo chipping away too much at their current anti trust unregulated oligopoly cash cow, I'm sure that will be their strategy, if it isn't already happening.
nony
Premium
join:2012-11-17
New York, NY

Re: antenna by the month

said by XJakeX:

I can see why the court decided this way. If Aereo is offering only those channels that you could pick up unnencrypted with either a rooftop antenna or a satellite dish, then there's really no difference than you setting up your own equipment, or paying someone else (Aereo) a monthly fee to do it for you. You're only paying for the antenna to get free OTA signals.

Yes, but in Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that Aereokiller was infringing -
»about.bloomberglaw.com/law-repor···n-aereo/

-nony