|
Lobby away.. lobby awayIn other news... congressional leaders have seen a large influx of donations from the big 3 broadcast companies.. next the weather. | |
|
| |
Re: Lobby away.. lobby awayThis 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
Anon
2014-Mar-4 9:32 am
Re: Lobby away.. lobby awaysaid 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 | |
|
| | | |
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. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Lobby away.. lobby away+1 | |
|
| | |
wizardry to jseymour
Anon
2014-Mar-4 9:47 am
to jseymour
Exactly. The Comcast/NBC deal was helped by the fact that certain NBC executives are big campaign donors. | |
|
| | |
to jseymour
But but... hope... and change. | |
|
| | |
to jseymour
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 | |
|
| | | |
Re: Lobby away.. lobby awayAnd you think Obama does what congress wants? | |
|
| | | | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2014-Mar-5 5:08 am
Re: Lobby away.. lobby awaysaid 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. | |
|
| | ieolusSupport The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Danbury, CT |
to jseymour
The Pretender?
Damn that was a great show. | |
|
|
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. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
ptb42
Member
2014-Mar-4 8:42 am
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
Anon
2014-Mar-4 9:33 am
Re: Uh huh.said by ptb42: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 | |
|
| |
| |
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN
1 recommendation |
Let's continue to prop up outdated business modelsFurther proof we have the best government that money can buy. There is still hope that Aereo could prevail, but this does not bode well. | |
|
|
WowAnd 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. | |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17
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 Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Mar-4 10:51 am
Re: When an individual wants to outsource their antenna .....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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
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 Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Mar-4 5:21 pm
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 |
n2jtx
Member
2014-Mar-4 10:25 am
Lobbyists At WorkIt 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. | |
|
|
shmerl
Member
2014-Mar-4 11:36 am
So, how muchwas DOJ paid for this exactly? | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2014-Mar-4 12:33 pm
Re: So, how muchUnknown 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. | |
|
| | |
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 | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Mar-4 1:30 pm
US Government Backs $$$$Surprise!
Best Government money can buy (Off) | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Hello retransmission feesAero 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. | |
|
| dnoyeBFerrous Phallus join:2000-10-09 Southfield, MI |
dnoyeB
Member
2014-Mar-4 4:33 pm
Re: Hello retransmission feesI 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. | |
|
| TOPDAWG Premium Member join:2005-04-27 Calgary, AB
1 recommendation |
to IowaCowboy
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. | |
|
| |
to IowaCowboy
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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
Their filing is rather comicalThe 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. | |
|
|
|