

Feds now oppose Aereo, rejecting cloud apocalypse argument - Baustin
http://betaboston.com/news/2014/03/04/aereo-online-tv-streaming-broadcasters-supreme-court-justice-department/

======
fragsworth
I don't understand why the broadcasters care enough to make a big deal about
this. Isn't their goal to get as many viewers as they can, so they can make
more advertising money?

If Aereo is distributing the content to more people, aren't they getting more
viewers? What is the problem here?

~~~
abat
Cable companies pay them a lot of money to retransmit network TV. If Aereo is
legal, that means that cable companies could use same trick destroying a large
portion of their revenue.

~~~
mikeryan
So why transmit OTA at all?

~~~
ProAm
Because we pay for it with our taxes.

~~~
hangonhn
Am I missing something? I thought they pay the FCC to use the spectrum.

~~~
ProAm
They pay a license fee for the spectrum, but do not own it. Because no one can
own a frequency. So the frequency is licensed by the government.

------
snorkel
Fed argument hinges on this "Under the 1976 Copyright Act, a company that
retransmits copyrighted broadcast television programs must obtain a license,
though qualifying retransmission services may avail themselves of the detailed
statutory licensing schemes established by Congress."

All television broadcasts are copyrighted, and local broadcasters, cable
providers, and satellite providers all have attained licenses to retransmit
those works. Feds are arguing that Aereo is charging customers for public
retransmission of copyrighted works without a licence from the copyright
holders. Of course current TV providers welcome this stance because they're
also trying to sell DVR services.

~~~
diminoten
Aereo isn't retransmitting to the public though, it's allowing you the ability
to remotely deploy an antenna in a place where reception is good, and
forwarding that signal onto you.

~~~
kej
It's a stretch to say they're letting me deploy an antenna. It's not like
they're just an antenna colocation company where I go install it myself.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Suppose that you were filthy rich, owned property that included a hill, and
hired people to put an antenna on your hill and run cable back to your house
so you could watch TV.

Now suppose you leased a part of your hill to your neighbour so that they
could do the same thing.

What's different about Aereo's model, other than the scale?

~~~
jsz0
> What's different about Aereo's model, other than the scale?

From a legal perspective the wording of the contract between parties matters
an awful lot. A quick look at Areo's site shows they are offering something
very different. If your property owner and neighbor entered a similar contract
for these services I suspect they would indeed face the same legal risks. Once
you become a middle man who is tuning/transcoding/transporting you fit the
mold of a cable TV service provider far more than a property owner leasing
land.

------
ynniv
The problem with the argument against Aereo is that (regardless of the Justice
Department's statement) it unravels rental services. Where is the line drawn?
Can I not rent a hotel room and watch television in it? Can I not rent a hotel
room, put a networked camera in it, and watch the television in the room while
I am not physically in it? Can I not rent a hotel room that already has such a
camera in it? Can I not rent a 1x1x1 hotel room with a miniature television
and network camera in it? Can the television and camera not be one device? The
"room" of Aereo is much smaller, but does size change legality?

~~~
bduerst
Only if you were to redistribute said content.

The argument they're making looks like they're saying that Aereo can't stream
copyrighted content over the internet, because the copyright owners (the
broadcasters) don't want their content used in the manner. This is weird
because broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyrights on material once it's
been broadcast. That's been Aereo's edge.

Basically they're trying to close the loophole by saying Aereo isn't consuming
the signal, hence they are interfering with the broadcast to the real
consumer.

~~~
icebraining
Hum, who says the broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyright on the
material? That makes no sense, if they didn't everyone could just capture it
and rebroadcast to the whole world at will.

I believe Aereo's position is not that the broadcasters don't hold the
copyright, it's that they aren't violating it since they just do "location-
shifting".

~~~
bduerst
>The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling
on Monday in a 2-to-1 decision, saying that Aereo’s streams of TV shows to
individual subscribers did not constitute “public performances,” and thus the
broadcasters’ copyright infringement lawsuits against the service “are not
likely to prevail on the merits.”

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-
wins-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-in-
appeals-court-setting-stage-for-trial-on-streaming-broadcast-tv.html)

~~~
icebraining
That doesn't say they don't hold copyright over the material. In fact, it
implies that they do, since otherwise, whether Aereo is doing a public
performance or not would be irrelevant.

~~~
bduerst
It only says they only copyright for those who are doing public performances
with the broadcast, and that they don't have copyright on the signal itself.

------
forgotAgain
Anyone have any knowledge of the particulars of the license that the
broadcasters bought for the spectrum they use. Are they perpetual or for a
limited time?

Just wondering if with the networks claim that most of their viewership comes
from cable if their use of the spectrum would no longer be considered the best
use for serving the public interest. Taking it further, would that allow the
government to re-purpose the spectrum for other use.

------
asn0
The biggest threat of this lawsuit will be to the meanings of arcane technical
terms such as "acquire", "playback" and "her".

------
mark-r
The Obama administration supporting broadcasters? What a shock.

------
fleitz
This case is going to follow the legal principle of what the government wants
the government gets.

For example shopping malls and corporate headquarters are a public use of
land, while growing a plant in your closet and consuming it in your home is
interstate commerce.

------
higherpurpose
If it may seem odd to you that the White House would get involved in this
issue, this may uncover the mystery - this is what you get when White House
hires former MPAA and RIAA executives in the administration:

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140303/17554626416/us-
sol...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140303/17554626416/us-solicitor-
generals-office-run-former-top-mpaa-lawyer-shockingly-sides-with-broadcasters-
over-aereo.shtml)

