dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Broadcasters Prep Killing Blow Against Aereo
by Karl Bode 06:10PM Tuesday Aug 19 2014
A few years ago, the courts shut down a dirt-cheap broadband TV service named Ivi, arguing that over the top video services weren't technically cable companies, and couldn't just start paying retransmission fees to become them. Fast forward to the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Aereo, which seemingly argued the exact opposite -- that Internet services could be cable operators if they pay retransmission fees.

It's not surprisingly then that Aereo's latest legal argument is to effectively agree with the Supreme Court (who one can legally argue overturned the Ivi ruling in their ruling against Aereo), and argue they can be a cable company if they just pay retransmission fees. The Washington Post notes that broadcaster lawyers are urging the courts to pre-empt Aereo's argument and impose an injunction across the board:
quote:
Broadcasters are trying to go for the kill, calling for a nationwide ban on Aereo. They're also demanding that any injunction address not just Aereo's retransmission of content in near real-time, but also even content that's played back online hours or days after the original broadcast. (Time-delayed playback has, for a long time, been considered fine under the law if the recording is being made for personal use. That's how we got VCRs and DVRs.)
Of course to hear CBS CEO Les Moonves tell it, the Aereo legal defeat and subsequent shutdown was very a "pro consumer thing" and a "terrific victory for anybody who is involved in the content business."

view:
topics flat nest 

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

1 recommendation

So sad to see this...

Aereo really stirred up the Hornet's nest here in DC. From the content distributors to their trade association proxies...

These "pro-Sumer" types won't stop until it's ashes.

Flyonthewall

@206.248.154.x

1 recommendation

Law is truly blind..

when it can't keep track of it's own decisions and how they should affect other decisions. You can't have it both ways, unless you have deep pockets.

This is what happens when you fight the status quo. Bought and paid for regulators don't have to justify their behavior as long as the money is right. Too bad, would have been nice to have this rise up and slap them in the face.
megarock

join:2001-06-28
Catawissa, MO
Reviews:
·Charter

Well

That can only mean one thing - the consumer needs to speak with their dollars. Boycott CBS and their advertisers. Hit them in their wallets and make sure your local CBS station and their advertisers feel the pinch too. If CBS wants to spearhead killing technology because they refuse to modernize themselves then so be it. Kill CBS.
Mr Guy

join:2014-05-06
USA

Re: Well

said by megarock:

That can only mean one thing - the consumer needs to speak with their dollars. Boycott CBS and their advertisers. Hit them in their wallets and make sure your local CBS station and their advertisers feel the pinch too. If CBS wants to spearhead killing technology because they refuse to modernize themselves then so be it. Kill CBS.

it's been proven time and time again people won't do that. When only 0.3% dump pay TV in the last quarter content makers and tv operators don't have a thing to worry about.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
OR, aereeo get sued out of existence for pirating.
--
Let them eat FIBER!

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: Well

You may want to look up what pirating means.

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Well

It's just like if someone mirrored this website and charged people to see it later. There are reasons for IP law, and good ones.
--
Let them eat FIBER!

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: Well

They are not mirroring it though. Do you even know how the service works?
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party

Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

Re: Well

One too many shots to the head, I'd say.

ohreallynow

@24.192.115.x
What? They didn't charge for the content. They charged to provide you the ability to obtain said content. Nothing more.. nothing less. CBS, et all was pizzed because they couldn't EXTORT money from Aereo for "rebroadcasting" said content. I can bet you a plug nickel that if I captured HD tv, sling shot it over to my sons room, the one next to that and to anyone within a 2 mile radius using various repeaters and "charged" him a rental "fee" to do so, they (CBS and the rest of the turdheads would be shutting me down.. or at least they would try.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
Except they were never pirating. Why do you think the case made it to the SCOTUS. If it had been piracy they would have been killed in the circuit courts.
--
Filan - Aurin Spellslinger - Pago - Team Legacy
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
Well if you could pick and choose your channels, maybe. But I am unaware of any cable package that precludes broadcast.

The whole industry is a keireitsu.

There are two paths: Real Regulation or full-blown monopolies. There is no between anymore. Which one do you think will happen? My $$$ is on full-blown monopolies.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Well

I agree, full monopoly. Especially when the people who our leadership hires to run the regulatory agency comes from the industry they regulate and very likely intends to go back. Like John Oliver I am calling Dingo.
--
Filan - Aurin Spellslinger - Pago - Team Legacy

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

2 recommendations

said by megarock:

That can only mean one thing - the consumer needs to speak with their dollars. Boycott CBS and their advertisers. Hit them in their wallets and make sure your local CBS station and their advertisers feel the pinch too. If CBS wants to spearhead killing technology because they refuse to modernize themselves then so be it. Kill CBS.

I already cancelled DirecTV and refuse to pay for television services. Have you done the same already?
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Mystic95Z

join:2005-05-10
Sellersburg, IN

Re: Well

I will be cancelling DTV on Friday, have a HTPC now and went with a 47.99/mo package from TWC. Well below the 120+ / mo DTV bill.

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

Re: Well

said by Mystic95Z:

I will be cancelling DTV on Friday, have a HTPC now and went with a 47.99/mo package from TWC. Well below the 120+ / mo DTV bill.

So instead of paying the broadcasters through DTV, you will be paying them through TWC.

I know many people are scared to cut the cord, but after your promo is up you'll be paying TWC full fee too.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

The Doctor

join:2011-11-25
Montreal,Qc
Do not fool yourself the consumer will do nothing as awlays sad true.

Boricua
Premium
join:2002-01-26
Sacramuerto

1 recommendation

Re: Well

Correct The Doctor See Profile. People are too busy trying to keep up with the Kardashians or Justin Bieber and the latest crap with North West, Blue Ivy or whatever fuck else is going on.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
said by The Doctor:

Do not fool yourself the consumer will do nothing as awlays sad true.

I think many people are scared to cut the cord too. And afraid of their wives and/or children, I mean you actually have to teach them to THINK about what they want to watch, instead of letting a dumb guide or dvr list decide whats best to watch. Scary!
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx

Content just needs to excellerate the de-coupling from old distro models

Aereo created a non-trivial industry flapdoodle but it still attached itself to what is essentially a dying delivery network. OTA is familiar and operates over existing infrastructure but it's not where we want to be.

IMO they'll go down as an entity which helped illuminate the gap between what we have (including what dicks the old boys can be) and what we want - thus a factor in nudging content producers to stand alone and broker distribution of their stuff through multiple channels: IP streamers, physical disc retail and, yes, old fixed broadcast networks if they haven't lost all their customers and wish to buy-in. (can you say run-on sentence?)

It's all good.

NoProConsumr

@172.56.40.x

Good for them...

too bad for us pro consumers. CBS CEO got it half right from his statement.
mikeluscher159

join:2011-09-04

Umm

....does no one get the irony?
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: Umm

Not in the least. Iheartradio is simply a free music player from Clear Channel playing already available online streams. Streams from Clear Channel and partner radio stations. And streams they have to pay an exorbitant amount to license holders to operate.

A fair comparison to Aereo would be an internet radio service that took OTA radio they didn't operate and delivered it via a web stream and allowed you to record on a remote server. All without paying any royalties or licensing.

JJames32

@120.236.0.x

Re: Umm

A fair comparison to Aereo would be an internet radio service that took OTA radio they didn't operate and delivered it via a web stream and allowed you to record on a remote server. All without paying any royalties or licensing. But i think i all need this smartphone accessory: »www.hdgenius.com/MHL-to-HDMI-And···-66.html
mikeluscher159

join:2011-09-04
said by silbaco:

Not in the least. Iheartradio is simply a free music player from Clear Channel playing already available online streams

Umm...... don't almost all of the networks Aereo had do the same thing?
frank124c

join:2003-12-04
Brooklyn, NY

Aereo

My idea for Aereo is to set up a website in a country that has no extradition with the US such as Cuba or Costa Rica or such and rebroadcast tv stations from there. If Aereo does not choose to do this then maybe someone else would be able to do so. In the meantime I am still enjoying YouTube and other services.

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

Re: Aereo

said by frank124c:

My idea for Aereo is to set up a website in a country that has no extradition with the US such as Cuba or Costa Rica or such and rebroadcast tv stations from there. If Aereo does not choose to do this then maybe someone else would be able to do so. In the meantime I am still enjoying YouTube and other services.

Would you pay for Cuban TV? To receive a US signal you have to be either in Mexico or Canada, you cannot receive US signals in cuba, its too far from Miami to receive anything but AM radio stations. (which may be scrambled by Cuba anyways).

This reminds me of pirate radio in the 1970s on the North Sea. To get around broadcast restrictions in The Netherlands, a ship just built a huge antenna on it's mast, and parked itself in international waters. Eventually, laws were changed such that the coast guard could board them and shut them down. But for 14 years they broadcasted to the Dutch coastal provinces, and were very popular.

Aereo's business model can only happen if they pay for re-broadcast rights. Anything else is illegal, whatever rent-a-tenna scheme they try.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA

Broadcasters suck

And the media companies then wonder why Pirate Bay is still so popular... Long live TPB!!!
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1
dewdude

join:2010-03-27
Manassas, VA

The lady that sings at the end of this fiasco is stuck in traffic.

Radio has always been treated a bit differently than TV; likely because people started streaming audio over the internet *long* before video was possible. In fact, back in the RealAudio days; loads of stations started just streaming the same audio they were feeding the transmitter.

The only thing that happened there...were record labels demanded more money...and they could not longer play the broadcast advertisements...having to replace them with more generic "internet-approved" stuff. In fact...part of the original argument as to why you couldn't beam in TV from other locations was claimed to be "copyright of local ads". But I never bought that.

iheartradio is basically streams of ClearChannel stations; which...if you haven't noticed...are only available through iheartradio; they're not available through other channels except that. TuneIn lists them, but they're unable to deliver any streams. The only time they allow it is services (like v.tuner) that stream to a "dedicated" device...like those internet radio devices. What happens if you try to use iheartradio outside of the US? don't know, never tried.

Most other stations run their own streams and don't put any restriction on it. It gets listed in v.tuner, tunein, and any other. It actually caused *some* problems because the original laws stated you weren't allowed to "rebroadcast" material...and it was referenced to a law in the 80's when they were trying to end simulcasting of AM and FM stations. Whether that's been dropped or not...I haven't looked. I do know as long as the station is paying the license for the online stream; they can serve it to whomever they want.

Take BBC as another example. the iPlayer app is normally thought of as the TV streaming app that let's anyone in the UK (or a non-blocked UK VPN) to stream TV content. However, what many people don't know is they also have iPlayer for BBC Radio; which will work from any old IP you can connect to.

Why has radio been treated differently? I'm not sure. Maybe it's because it's been around longer; maybe it's because so many people for years were picking up distant stations before the concept of a local station was unheard of.

Essentially...what the networks are trying to do is basically kill any and all freedoms. They don't want you recording content; they don't want you watching content remotely. They want you in the home; watching it when they tell you to; watching every single ad so they can collect money. If you watch on demand; that's fine; but they're going to insert even more advertisements you're forced to watch.

Oh...and you're paying for the consent fee for the provider to carry the signal.

The networks have already tried to use the Aero ruling improperly; and the judges have said it was *never* about online streaming; or DVR...but the simple fact they were operating like a pay-TV provider. Fox, for example; minutes after the Aereo ruling; demanded an injunction against Dish over Hopper technology...and by extension, Slingbox; essentially claiming the ruling against Aero supported their arguments. However, the judges threw that argument out. They already knew what Slingbox was; a lower court had already ruled place-shifting is legal since each slingbox was capable of streaming only to a single device/connection at a time. The judges actually made it a point to steer their decision away from Slingbox technology; and actually state it wasn't up for debate in the case.

Of course they also told Fox that Sling technology had been around "for about a decade"; and if it wasn't causing them harm then, then why should it all of a sudden do so?

The thing about time-delay playback; hopefully they're only attacking the idea of remote time-delay playback....and hopefully it gets limited to just "off-site" playback. Here's what I mean by that. There actually was a similar ruling against a cable company that archived basically every stream they were getting; and allowed subscribers to watch it later. They were told to stop. I believe the basic point was it was found to be infringement since it wasn't the customer making the recording. I believe one of the justifications behind place-shifting technology was that the signal was physically coming from the customer's home; on equipment located in their house; and was being sent to them over a "private performance". However that also begs the question that if the signal is traveling to your "home"; what does that do for providers like A2BTV...which will host a satellite receiver and slingbox in a datacenter (although for almost extortion rate prices). A2B used to offer west-coast based TWC; at least untill the local broadcasters ganged up on them.

The broader issue with the remote-playback stuff would be the legality of whole-house DVR's. Technically, that's remote-playback...so a blanket decision trying to force Aereo from ever trying to exist could render just about all the new generation set-top-box "systems" illegal. Furthermore...if they find a way to block time-shifting; kiss the DVR functionality goodbye. The biggest problems broadcasters have had with DVR's; or at least have won the battle in court; has been over "auto-skip" features; which are targeted toward skipping commercials without user intervention. That's been a hot-topic ever since that started showing up on VCR's.

Basically; I think they're trying to block it so some other company can't come along and create an internet-based "cable company" the legitimate way. I'm a Slingbox user, an avid one at that; my initial response was that this ruling was going to apply to place-shifting technologies as well. But, the courts only sided with the networks on if they were operating as a pay-TV service or not. I'm sure they're trying to find a way to kill all kinds of internet streaming, of any forms; but since the courts have only seemed to focus on the pay-TV aspect...they may actually be trying to do things as carefully as possible without bending to the will of networks as much.

Then again...I only have a passive idea of what's going on...and have no education that would allow me to make anything but a bunch of outsider perspectives.