
Our Path Forward - e15ctr0n
http://blog.aereo.com/2014/07/path-forward/
======
skwirl
If I understand correctly:

Broadcasters: Aereo is a cable company!

Aereo: We're not a cable company!

Supreme court: We decree that Aereo is a cable company.

Aereo: Ok, I guess we're a cable company, so let's litigate under the statutes
that apply to cable companies.

Broadcasters: But you said before that you weren't a cable company so
therefore you aren't!

~~~
callahad
Also, Aereo: Oh, and remember that SCOTUS only specifically said we're
infringing when things are rebroadcast nearly simultaneously. Because they
punted on the question of later playback, you should totally let us do DVR-
style playback, even if you grant an injunction.

~~~
Guvante
I don't know if it is as weak as you are implying. Remember the injunction is
only supposed to protect the plaintiff, not kill the defendant. An injunction
that only applies until the show is over would provide most of the benefit the
plaintiff needs while not destroying Aereo in the mean time.

------
jwise0
Although I have no love in particular for the plaintiffs in this case, and I
think that Aereo's new strategy is probably something they should be allowed
to pursue, there was one sentence in their response that really rubbed me the
wrong way. Aereo wrote:

"Aereo has been careful to follow the law, and the Supreme Court announced a
new and different rule governing Aereo's operations last week."

Their claim is that the lower courts had one rule, and the Supreme Court
announced a new rule. Although I understand where they're coming from, I'm not
sure I agree with that characterization: I believe it would be the position of
the Supreme Court that their interpretation of the law has /always/ been the
correct interpretation of the law, and that Aereo was simply misguided earlier
(but that that does not excuse their failure to act in accordance with the
law).

ABC are probably right that Aereo should have brought up the S111 argument
before; this sort of thing, I understand, is common (the legalese for such
being 'arguendo').

~~~
untog
Yes, it does feel particularly disingenuous. There was a loophole in the law
that Aereo exploited. The Supreme Court judgement closed that loophole.

~~~
dublinben
It wasn't a loophole, it was the law. Aereo were following Copyright law and
previous case law _as exactly as possible_. The Supreme Court changed that law
in their ruling, because they felt it went against the 'spirit' of the law.

~~~
paulgb
Isn't doing something that is legal but goes against the spirit of the law by
definition exploiting a loophole?

Edit: now that I think about it, there is room for a distinction between areas
where case law hasn't ventured and exploitable holes in areas that case law
_has_ explored. But I'm interested in hearing if there's a more formal
definition.

------
joelhaus
TLDR:IANAL

(i) After SCOTUS characterizes Aereo as cable company, Aereo appears willing
to pay statutory content licensing fees that apply to cable companies. (ii)
Aereo also seeks to retain the remote DVR feature of their service because the
SCOTUS ruling only applies to live or near-live content transmission.

The former would create added costs, while the latter would obviously harm
Aereo's value proposition because of the lack of live sporting events. Hope
they find a way to survive.

~~~
yaur
The programmers have never been willing to treat OTT providers as legitimate
MVPDs, if they were we would have had "internet cable" years ago. The real
risk to Aereo here is that this opens up competition and will likely trigger a
bunch of MFNs that will allow traditional cable companies get into the OTT
market. Since the programmers' rates cards are largely based on the number of
subscribers Comcast and company will be able to kill them on price.

~~~
dublinben
I've been an Aereo customer since they first entered my city. I'm looking
forward to paying again if they start offering a DVR-only service. I would
never pay Comcast a cent for a similar service. I'm using Aereo to _get away
from Comcast_.

------
paul9290
I say Aereo and or another should become a wireless ISP like NetBlazr (article
about them [http://goo.gl/TpBh9A](http://goo.gl/TpBh9A)).

NetBlazr sets up WiFi antenna's on rooftops now. While you set up my Internet
antenna, please set up a TV antenna for me - one I can access streaming via
the web. I only pay for Internet service and a one time TV antenna set up fee.

Now if this company, whether it be NetBlazr or Aereo wants to offer more
channels via their web site where I watch my local channels then great! I just
might buy more channels.

~~~
dsl
In major metros it is really hard to get roof rights. In larger buildings HOAs
even have exclusive agreements with cable and satellite resellers that install
a single set of equipment for the entire building.

You are trading one set of ridiculous laws for another.

~~~
upofadown
Supposedly those exclusive deals are no longer allowed:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/federal-court-
uph...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/federal-court-upholds-fcc-
ban-on-exclusive-cable-deals/)

------
guelo
The broadcasters have been given a huge amount of very valuable public
spectrum that is increasingly useless. It really should be taken away from
them and made unlicensed. Can you imagine the benefits to society if these
useless giant companies stopped hogging the spectrum and a million innovators
got to play in that playground?

------
wmf
If they want to become a cable company maybe they should merge with
Intel/Verizon OnCue to get better economy of fail.

