
Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case - pgrote
http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/supreme-court-to-hear-aereo-case-1201037308/
======
cjensen
As of this week ABC's iOS app no longer allows users to watch over-the-air
shows unless they have a cable contract. There's only one reason I can think
of for this boneheaded move: ABC wants people to have cable because ABC owns
ESPN and ESPN makes more money than any other network.

In the US, they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public
own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the
networks and hope Aereo will prevail.

~~~
mbreese
Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates.
That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the
networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still
getting something from iOS users.

This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because
Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are
successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to
capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission
fees.

(Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and
you see that it's all a big mess)

~~~
acjohnson55
^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And
if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I
think it's high time for some changes, though.

Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the
content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna-
to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to
broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine
how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the
principles of public access to broadcast TV.

Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the
Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were
overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most
disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be
required to host their own DVRs.

(Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)

~~~
brownbat
> Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent.

Definitely. Note though, that this was exactly the concern when cable came
out, and got its start by delivering over the air broadcasts from faraway
metropolises to subscribers in rural areas or other cities.

For anyone interested in the history of telecommunications, definitely check
out Tim Wu's "The Master Switch. There's a section on how new cable companies
fought against entrenched broadcasters back when the power dynamic was a
little different, really shows how often this same battle repeats itself with
different players every time.

~~~
acjohnson55
Unless the cable companies back in the day used separate antennas for each
subscriber, it's not quite the same thing. Aereo actually bothers with this
step.

------
zaroth
I think Aereo will prevail because they have explicitly engineered a personal
device for personal consumption of a legal public broadcast. Using personal
digital equipment in order to personally consume a public broadcast is
obviously legal.

The legal theory is that Aereo is essentially an antenna company. If their
service is the legal equivalent of an 'antenna', perhaps antennae are now so
powerful that the compulsory licensing law needs to be changed somehow in
response. In that case, you don't sue the antenna maker, you lobby congress to
change the law. It will be entertaining to see this argued and ruled on.

A parallel scenario... Have you seen the telepresence robots (iPad on a stick)
that have started to become available? Lets say you're disabled, can't leave
your house, but want to "go out for dinner and a movie" with your friends.
Your robot rolls into the movie theater, pays for a ticket, and grabs a seat,
streaming the video back to you individually. One camera, one stream, one
brain on the other end of the wire, and no backing store. Have you violated
copyright laws? I think not. I would also love to see the ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) vs. Anti-Camcording argued in the Supreme Court.

From Wikipedia on ADA -- 'Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated
against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or
operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most
places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation,
education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public
displays, among other things.'

~~~
pudquick
Unfortunately in this scenario, ADA is pretty much gutted.

A movie theater is not required to provide for someone with a disability in
any way, shape, or form, if they cannot themselves physically (at least)
arrive at the location - and I mean their actual body, not telepresence.

About the most they're required to do is ramps for access into / out of the
building, disabled seating and bathroom access.

~~~
cstejerean
I'd love to see the movie theaters though try to balance that against the PR
nightmare that would come out of them fighting such a case.

------
untog
I do sympathise with both sides, here. Right now, broadcast TV companies are
able to charge cable companies "retransmission fees" in order to carry their
channels. It's a decent revenue stream. Aereo have side-stepped this for their
purposes.

Aereo are entitled to do this. But I don't blame the broadcast companies for
freaking out - if Aereo can do this then the cable companies can too - the
broadcast networks will lose their retransmission fee revenue (at a time when
they're not exactly swimming in cash anyway) and the cable companies get to
boost their profits even more. Which they don't deserve.

The only other solution for the broadcast companies will be to switch off
their antenna broadcasts, which would also be a big shame.

~~~
cma
They don't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there. It
really should have little-to-no bearing on the case other than the networks'
eargerness to pursue.

In my opinion it wouldn't be bad if the networks had to pay the cable
companies to get carried--after all, they are essentially just improving
reception for viewers, letting the networks display more ads than they
otherwise could.

~~~
untog
The broadcast networks paying the cable networks would all but guarantee they
go bankrupt. So the most likely answer here is that NBC, ABC, etc. just shut
off their antenna broadcasts. Which would be a real shame.

 _They don 't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there._

True. But I'd argue that Aereo's $7 a month charge to rebroadcast content they
have nothing to do with is a dubious revenue stream, too.

~~~
fennecfoxen
That content is broadcast for $0. It's logically similar to renting an antenna
on your roof and a cable connecting that to the TV. Considering that antennas
are ugly, and not the cheapest... antenna-invisibility services are a
reasonable thing to pay money for.

~~~
untog
If I recorded NBC TV shows, burnt them to DVD and sold them on for profit I
would be violating the law, despite it also being "logically similar". It
isn't as simple as that broadcast being "for $0".

~~~
lelandbatey
Yes, but then you'd be unfairly duplicating the content without permission.

With Aereo, you are renting the antenna (just far away) and streaming from
that. Every customer has an antenna. It is the logical scaling up of a
currently allowable business model. It has the same end result as many less
savory models, but it is not illegal at all.

Whether it should continue to be legal is up for debate, but right now it's
squarely in the right.

~~~
qq66
You could argue that Aereo's copying of the received signal to an output
stream is also unlicensed duplication.

~~~
melvinram
Well that's for the Supreme Court to decide now but logically speaking, it's
not an unlicensed duplication. It's not duplicated at all. The broadcast is
recorded once, played back by the original recorder, and is not distributed as
it's not being transferred from one entity to another.

The whole argument obviously relies on the premise that Areo is renting you
the antenna, so you're the one doing the recording using rented equipment far
away.

------
jaynos
I don't trust the Supreme Court to produce a proper ruling on this one. I
assume Aereo will lose. That said, I don't see how it could be argued that
Aereo is breaking any law.

~~~
rayiner
1) Why don't you trust them? I've personally never read a Supreme Court ruling
that got the _technology_ angle fundamentally wrong, though I have seen a
number where the Supreme Court's principles are at odds with certain values
and beliefs often held by _technologists_.

2) What's so defensible about a business model that is based entirely on
taking advantage of someone else's product? Without the content produced by
the networks, there would be absolutely no reason for Aereo to exist.

I think Aereo will win, because the precedent is on its side. However, I also
think the company is just taking advantage of a loophole and should try
actually producing content people want to watch instead of simply taking some
other company's content for free.

~~~
gergles
I have never understood the concept of "taking content for free" and the
implied judgment about doing so, with regards to 'retransmission consent'.

If you run an organization that broadcasts content to anybody with an antenna,
you should not be shocked, just _shocked_ when somebody picks it up and uses
it as they see fit. If you don't want that to happen, don't _broadcast_ your
content and don't abuse the public spectrum to try to still exact control over
the use of your _broadcasted_ content.

~~~
rayiner
Just because you agree to do N doesn't mean you agree to do N+1 or N+2, etc.
The networks do broadcast content, that's very expensive to produce, for free,
in return for use of the public spectrum. That's the bargain. But the bargain
doesn't mean that they agree to let other people do whatever "they see fit"
with the broadcasted content. One part of that bargain, embodied in the
copyright rules, is that you can't take the broadcast video and perform it
publicly. I.e. I can't tape NBC shows and then open up a movie theater playing
them. That's not part of the bundle of rights NBC agreed to give up in the
process of broadcasting the show over the air.

All Aereo does is take advantage of a loophole. They couldn't record the shows
and stream them, because that would violate the networks' copyright. So they
try to shoehorn effectively the same service into the exception for time-
shifting.

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
So a business that would be legal if Aero were leasing the equipment to people
in their homes is illegal because it's instead in the Aero office and people
connect to it over traditional telecommunications?

~~~
rayiner
If you go to a strip club, and pay the $20 cover, you get to watch the show.
Does that mean a company can show up with a camera, broadcast a feed on the
internet, and pay $20 for each person who is logged in? It's the same thing
right?

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
> brodcast a feed on the internet ... for each person who is logged in?

The analogous situation would be if they paid $20 per watcher to the strip
club, and had one blind dude come in with a whole array of webcams that linked
up to people on the internet, with one webcam per person.

To which I'd ask you, why do you think this is a bad thing?

(The difference, of course, being that strip clubs are private whereas the
public airwaves are public.)

------
PaulHoule
I can't see why anybody cares about Aereo. Do people think it is unclean to
receive DVB? I mean, why spend money on a service so you can spend more money
on your metered mobile data plan to pick up a signal that is travelling right
by you for free.

I'd certainly pay for the ability to stream TV in distant markets, like IVI.TV
did, but it seems like Aereo was created just to have a lawsuit, not satisfy
any need.

~~~
pbreit
I just want to watch free TV on my Mac, iPad or iPhone. How do I do that?

~~~
matthewmcg
Easy way: get a Slingbox and use the SlingPlayer App

Harder way: get an Elgato EyeTV

Most complex (but versatile way): get a tuner like the Silicon Dust HDHomerun
and set up a Mythtv or Plex system.

(All of the above require an antenna.)

Edit: obviously, you can also use Aereo!

------
brohoolio
I hope they win. It's one of the services that has helped convince my family
to ditch cable. I can see them continuing to expand beyond the broadcast
market to an internet version of TV. Aereo might not even need the broadcast
networks in a few years but they definitely need them now.

------
hemancuso
Seems like a good opportunity for a Roku-like aereo box. External antenna.
16gb of flash. Couldn't you make a good box with a few antenna options that
replicated the exact functionality sold as a consumer product? I can't imagine
it would cost much to produce, and a company like roku already has most of the
software in place (sans tv schedule and recording facilities) to make this
happen.

------
JSadowski
The thing that always annoyed me about Aereo is how they restrict who can
"rent an antenna". If they are to stick to their legal argument that they're
just renting an antenna, then why can I not rent an antenna based in New York
City, even though I live in Wisconsin?

------
pravda
I think we all know how this will turn out.

