dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
DOJ Backs Broadcasters In Aereo Supreme Court Fight
by Karl Bode 07:18AM Tuesday Mar 04 2014
As Aereo's April 22 showdown with broadcasters at the Supreme Court looms, broadcasters got some significant if not unsurprising support in the form of the United States government. In a Supreme Court filing (pdf) made by the Justice Department, the agency states their opinion that Aereo's OTA technology still violates copyright, while arguing Aereo can be defeated without impacting the fate of other technologies, like Cablevision's cloud DVR. "A decision rejecting [Aereo’s] infringing business model and reversing the judgment below need not call into question the legitimacy of innovative technologies that allow consumers to use the Internet to store, hear, and view their own lawfully acquired copies of copyrighted works," the Justice Department said.

view:
topics flat nest 

tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI

Lobby away.. lobby away

In other news... congressional leaders have seen a large influx of donations from the big 3 broadcast companies.. next the weather.

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

Re: Lobby away.. lobby away

This has nothing to do with Congress. The Justice (for me, but not for thee) Department is part of the Executive Branch, which is Barack Obama's bailiwick. Hollyweird and the broadcast industry have both pretty consistently supported the Pretender, so it's no surprise his "justice" department would sing their tune.

Jim

PlusOne

@comcast.net

Re: Lobby away.. lobby away

said by jseymour:

This has nothing to do with Congress. The Justice (for me, but not for thee) Department is part of the Executive Branch, which is Barack Obama's bailiwick. Hollyweird and the broadcast industry have both pretty consistently supported the Pretender, so it's no surprise his "justice" department would sing their tune.

Jim

+1
Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ

Re: Lobby away.. lobby away

+2

That, and Eric Holder is perhaps the most corrupt and incompetent attorney general to have ever held that position. Everything bad anybody has ever said about Reno (shudder,) Ashcroft, and Gonzales...those guys have nothing on Holder.
Automate

join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA

Re: Lobby away.. lobby away

+1

wizardry

@ohio-state.edu
Exactly. The Comcast/NBC deal was helped by the fact that certain NBC executives are big campaign donors.
biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
But but... hope... and change.

tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
So, you REALLY think those f-tards in congress didn't have anything to do with "suggesting" this action. I need to stop watching CSPAN
Automate

join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA

Re: Lobby away.. lobby away

And you think Obama does what congress wants?
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Lobby away.. lobby away

said by Automate:

And you think Obama does what congress wants?

Congress cannot even do what congress wants. The current fighting between the Dems and the Teatards that run the GOP means nobody in our government gets a damn thing done that benefits the people.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
The Pretender?

Damn that was a great show.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp

goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

Uh huh.

quote:
while arguing Aereo can be defeated without impacting the fate of other technologies
The current DOJ is so politicized and consistently wrong, I'd take their opinion with a huge grain of salt.
ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

1 recommendation

Re: Uh huh.

said by goalieskates:

The current DOJ is so politicized and consistently wrong, I'd take their opinion with a huge grain of salt.

Yeah, this is the DoJ that claims that only certain groups of people can be victimized by hate crimes (and therefore, only certain groups of people can commit hate crimes).

PlusOne

@comcast.net

Re: Uh huh.

said by ptbarnett:

said by goalieskates:

The current DOJ is so politicized and consistently wrong, I'd take their opinion with a huge grain of salt.

Yeah, this is the DoJ that claims that only certain groups of people can be victimized by hate crimes (and therefore, only certain groups of people can commit hate crimes).

+1
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
you forgot corrupt

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
said by goalieskates:

I'd take their opinion with a huge grain of salt.

+1.. A grain of salt? Don't you mean a boulder of salt?

Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

1 recommendation

Let's continue to prop up outdated business models

Further proof we have the best government that money can buy. There is still hope that Aereo could prevail, but this does not bode well.
--
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." - Robert A. Heinlein
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Wow

And here I thought Uncle Sam would happily drive a stake into OTA's heart, given the FCC's obsession with reclaiming that spectrum for more mobile broadband.
MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

When an individual wants to outsource their antenna .....

it's copyright infringement.

When a corporation wants to outsource anything, it's sound business practice.

If corporations are people too, then the corollary must also be true .....people can be corporations as well (and never serve jail time).
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: When an individual wants to outsource their antenna .....

said by MaynardKrebs:

people can be corporations as well

I know it's not necessarily what you were implying, but you can establish a legal business entity to limit liability for business activities anytime you'd like. There are several options available.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: When an individual wants to outsource their antenna .....

Who'd of thunk... liability can vanish into thin air with the simple act of incorporation!
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: When an individual wants to outsource their antenna .....

No, it doesn't vanish, nor is that what I said. But then you know that already.

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Lobbyists At Work

It looks like this DOJ filing was bought and paid for by the OTA industry. Aereo is complying with every technical aspect of the current law and DOJ claims they are breaking the law. Meanwhile other services that follow that same law and technical requirements ARE NOT breaking the law. Go figure that one out.

As I have said before, the simple solution is for the content providers to go to congress, drop a couple of hundred million on them and buy a change in the law.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
shmerl

join:2013-10-21

So, how much

was DOJ paid for this exactly?
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: So, how much

Unknown but clearly some people in the right places just secured their high paying positions on Lobby Row in DC when they retire from the DOJ.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

Re: So, how much

"Money (That's What I Want)"
"Money (That's What I Want)"
"Money (That's What I Want)"
"Money (That's What I Want)"
DOJ

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

US Government Backs $$$$

Surprise!

Best Government money can buy (Off)

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

Hello retransmission fees

Aero will have to probably pay retransmission fees and then raise their rates to those similar of a cable/satellite subscription.

It's not that broadcasters are against over the top technologies, it's those that push the technologies want retransmission contracts that would allow them to charge a fraction of the rates of traditional cable/satellite subscriptions. The average cable bill is about $70 a month, the streaming providers want to charge $12 a month for the same content. That's the sticking point and that is why over the top technologies are going nowhere. You can't charge $12 a month for content that costs you $50 per month to obtain. ESPN costs $5 per subscriber alone.

In the business world, if you pay the gatekeeper what they demand then you are allowed in. They'll gladly take the money of the streaming providers, the streaming providers will have to charge rates similar to a cable subscription and use some form of content protection.
--
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.

dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Hello retransmission fees

I was under the impression that Cable was more than just a retransmitter. More like a local TV station that injected its own commercials? Is this not so?

Either way, cable has much more content than OTA so that may have a bit to do with the price difference.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16

TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

and ESPN is why I find cable to be BS. damn if I care about paying for that crap as I don't watch sports at all. BS I have to pay for crap I don't want but mind you I don't have cable so I don't have to pay.

anon troll

@bellsouth.net
Yes, but Youtube, Ustream, and Dailymotion would also have to pay retransmission fees as well. Users would have to pay a fee to keep their accounts on Youtube, Ustream and dailymotion open or their accounts will be terminated.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Their filing is rather comical

The Aereo business model (and the previous court decisions) rest firmly on the ground set by Cablevision's remote DVR service NOT being a 'public performance'. Since it is the user that is in control of the broadcast to themselves (in both cases) the performance is deemed private instead of public. The brief clearly states this then goes to say that the Aereo decision should be reversed but there is no reason to revisit the Cablevision decision since they are an innovative business. There is no legal precedent or justification to describe how the services differ... just that we don't have to bother Cablevision while we squash infringing Aereo. They argue that watching a recording (ala Cablevision) is completely different than watching live TV (even though they admit there is a 5-6 second buffer!) What little legal argument they actually put forward relies on the opinion of the dissenting judge in the Cablevision case. In essence, they DO argue that Cablevision's DVR service is infringing but we only need to consider that against Aereo. :/ If this was my lawyer I would fire him instantly.