Fox threatens to go off air if Aereo succeeds in court battles

[RKP5637]

Excellent, I hope Aereo succeeds in court battles!!! I would love to see Fox go off the air. It would clean up the air waves!

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2013/04/fox-threatens-go-air-if-aereo-succeeds-court-battles

The broadcast networks may compete with each other for viewers but they are all in agreement over one thing - Aereo must be stopped. News Corp, which owns Fox, is so determined to turn public opinion against the tech start-up that it has threatened to pull the network off the air.

For as little as $10 a month, Aereo gives web subscribers live content from the networks by picking up the content from the public airways, notes The Washington Post. This clearly threatens the networks’ livelihoods, since it means that families can cut cable or satellite services without losing access to live news and sports coverage. Now that the service is moving into over 20 new markets, the networks are ramping up their legal challenges.

Bloomberg notes that Fox’s Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey made the drastic threat to stop broadcasting over the air, making the network exclusive to pay-TV subscribers.

“We need to be able to be fairly compensated for our content,” Carey argued in a talk with executives in Las Vegas Monday. “This is not an ideal path we look to pursue, but we can’t sit idly by and let an entity steal our signal. We will move to a subscription model if that’s our only recourse.”

Fox isn’t alone. Univision’s chairman Haim Saban made a similar threat. “We need to protect our product and revenue streams and therefore we too are considering all of our options, including converting to pay-TV,” he told Bloomberg.

“Aereo has invented a simple, convenient way for consumers to utilize an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television, bringing television access into the modern era for millions of consumers,” Aereo said in response, reports The Hollywood Reporter. “Over 50 million Americans today access television via an antenna.”

Another key aspect of Aereo’s services that are under attack include a feature that allows people to pause and record live programming. It’s even looking at a future where people will only pay for the networks they want, notes the Post.

The networks first sued Aereo, which is owned by Barry Diller, in March 2012 and just last week, an appeals court blocked the attempt to shut it down.

[HereSince1628]

1. GO Aereo!!!!!!

[Roy Rolling]

23. Oh please God....

The prospect of Fox going off the air is enough to turn the most hardcore atheist to prayer.

[GoCubsGo]

28. You know they're not talking about Fox News, right?

They're talking about the broadcast network that carries shows like "The Simpsons", "The Family Guy", and "New Girl". Personally, I'd hate to see it go, I like a lot of their Sunday night programming.

[rurallib]

45. i can't remember when I turned on any Fox program

to each their own

[southernyankeebelle]

39. From your mouth to god's ears. Everyone get the prayer chain going. LOL

[bemildred]

2. So? nt

[byeya]

3. Oh please don't throw me in the brier patch!

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. The whole govt mandating the use of digital signals a few years back

was simply another thinly veiled money grab by cable and satellite companies. The digital signals are in many cases much less reliable and stable for millions of Americans and it has inevitably led to millions signing up for basic cable just so they could get some reliable reception.

In Indy, when they went to the all digital broadcast signal I lost reliable reception for many channels and picked up three or four religious channels. Oddly, these channels come in loud and clear, rain or shine.

Aereo seems to be a paid antenna service. Also, I thought I heard they won their case against Fox yesterday. Maybe wrong about that though.

[RKP5637]

7. The digital signals here aren't too bad, but as you found, the religious channels blast in

loud and clear no matter what. We have 5 of them here. I find it a bit odd too.

[southernyankeebelle]

41. You know I asked why can't I exchange the religion channels for some other channels. I

don't watch the religion channels except occasionally the catholic channel. I only need one religious channel if I have to have one.

[mac56]

44. For the same reason you have to buy the whole Sunday paper

rather than just the sports page and the op/ed page.

[phantom power]

5. wait, is this some kind of weird brain teaser?

[DetlefK]

6. Fox has judicial precedence on its side.

A US court ruled this month that you can't re-sell music you downloaded. This is practically the same.

[onenote]

11. Not really.

The ReDigi case (the re-sale of downloaded music case) was a district court decision, while Aereo was a court of appeals decision, and thus the distict court case is not any form of precedent in the Aereo case.

More to the point, the two cases involve much different issues. ReDigi raised issues regarding the scope of the first sale doctrine and the copyright owners' exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copies of their works. Aereo involved the issue of whether streaming a unique copy of a broadcast program to the viewer who caused the copy to be made was a "public performance" (the Court found it was not).

That is not to say that another court, and eventually the Supreme Court, might not reach a different conclusion with regard to Aereo than the court of appeals. Indeed, a district court in California, which is not bound by the precedent of the court of appeals in New York, already has held that an Aereo copycat service is engaging in a public performance of copyrighted broadcast programming and thus is an infringer. But the ReDigi case is unlikely to play any real role in the resolution of the Aereo issue.

[Flashmann]

8. Fox threatens to go off air if Aereo succeeds in court battles

Riiiiiight.

Much like the El Rushbo crowd was going to leave the country if Obama was elected/re-elected or if the ACA passed/was upheld.Just like Ted Nugent died/went to jail,after the 2012 election.

Faux theatening to do something actually laudable,means nothing.Blowhards,loudmouths,LIARS.

[leftyohiolib]

9. could it be that easy?

[progressoid]

10. This is NOT Fox News though.

It would affect local Fox affliates' news, but not cable Fox News.

[Liberalynn]

12. That's what I was afraid of that it wouldn't be Faux Noise

[KharmaTrain]

13. Where TV Is Eventually Headed...

...fewer people are watching OTA or "Over-the-air" signals these days...and those that do (lower income) aren't the "clientele" the networks are hoping to reach. This dude is just showing his cards early. The combination of cable, satellite and internet streaming make local television stations and operations less and less important to a Fox or other large corporate broadcaster. If anything, these stations are a drain on the profits...maintenance of staffs and equipment...it's far cheaper to just send it via other systems where they can also control who can and can't watch.

I find the Aereo case interesting as, if successful, the increase in viewers (which can be monitored) would be used by said broadcasters to ask for higher advertising rates. They should be working with this company to expand their reach but are so cash-strapped and self centered to realize they're biting themselves in the butt in the long term...

[The Wielding Truth]

35. The evolution of broadcast programing will not be stopped. It will seek it's better path. Let those

who oppose it adapt or go away. Looks like Aereo is only available in NYC, so it has some growing to do.

Ha. The free market is so important until it needs stifled by the super greedy who think they are above the people's need for progress. The truly corrupt put their profits above all else.

[xtraxritical]

48. I droped cable tv about a year ago and I can watch everything I used to

on the web. This saves me eighty bucks a month, yeah!

[mac56]

14. Obviously I'm missing something, but

why would the major networks object to this?

More availability of their programming? More viewers, especially more tech-savvy viewers?

Seriously, Idoan geddit.

[onenote]

21. Because broadcasting hasn't relied solely on ad revenues for two decades

In 1992, Congress gave broadcasters the right to demand payments from cable and satellite companies in return for allowing their signals to be retransmitted to subscribers. Those payments topped $2 billion last year and are expected to triple in the next few years. Aereo doesn't pay those fees. It also doesn't pay "compulsory" copyright royalty fees that cable and satellite companies are required to pay for the right to retransmit copyrighted broadcast programming (that's another $300 million a year).

[mac56]

25. Ah, gotcha.

One of the myriad ways that the Telecommunications Act was a godsend for TV networks and sucked for radio.

[onenote]

33. Actually, this predated the Telecommunications Act. It was part of the 1992 Cable Act.

[EC]

15. Well I'm interested.

I've been looking for more ways to cut off cable.

[vkkv]

16. To business people, it's NOT "FREEDOM" unless it's them who are the FREE TO EXPLOIT.

What AEREO is doing is exactly the kind of BUSINESS FREEDOM that right-wingers rant about them losing.,, But now it affects them!

HYPOCRITES!

[msanthrope]

17. Excellent, Comrade...the plan is working!! nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. People are watching it NOW for free. With an actual TV set....

BTW:

I doubled the dimensions and converted an old outdoor antenna. 100% signal on all channels.

[RKP5637]

27. K&R !!! Cool !!!

[niyad]

19. channeling the dowager countess of grantham: "do you promise?"

[lastlib]

20. If Fox wants "to be fairly compensated for its content"...

...let's all grant them their wish and send 'em a pile of used toilet paper...

[onenote]

22. I think the Simpsons and Family Guy are worth more than that, but opinions differ.

[colorado_ufo]

26. Beat me to it!

Actually, I was going to ask when dog turds had become a commodity.

[LiberalEsto]

24. Promise?

[mzmolly]

29. Faux has suddenly lost all respect for the "free market"?

Huh.

[Myrina]

30. So it sounds like a little capitalist competition is making the big boys anxious ...

... so much for their theory about the free market ....

[RKP5637]

38. Like most bullies, when they're on top it's OK, but when they start to

get their asses kicked they scream for mommy.

[srican69]

31. I cant imagine the publicity these guys are ginning up for Aereo ...

fools

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. If you broadcast or rebroadcast music, you pay a royalty to the creator. TV should be different?

It costs money to produce television shows. Matt Groening created the Simpsons. You think he shouldn't be rewarded just like Bob Dylan or Carly Simon or David Byrne?

It doesn't matter if you broadcast or rebroadcast music from a disk or a file or a signal. When you do so, you owe royalties. Even when rebroadcasting a radio show through a building or supermarket.

TV is different?

[Sentath]

40. This is not a rebroadcast

it is a rented DVR with a virtualized cord.

Ars Technica had a really good article somewhere http://arstechnica.com/search/?query=Aereo

probably this one http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/appeals-court-upholds-legality-of-aereos-tiny-antennas-scheme/

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. TV is different

I understand the argument for creative shows like The Simpsons. Matt Groening is an artist and should be rewarded (or at least paid)

But I'd also love to see the de-celebritizing of the Talking Heads. Basically, sticking to the analogy of the music industry, its like the DJ is now getting paid as much or more than the artists.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Top-TV-Earners-1021717.aspx

Matt Lauer (Today) $16 million +
Katie Couric (CBS) $15 million
Brian Williams (NBC) $12.5 million
Diane Sawyer (ABC) $12 million
Meredith Vieira (Today) $11 million
Bill O'Reilly (Fox News) $10 million
George Stephanopoulos (ABC) $8 million
Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) $7 million
Shepard Smith (Fox News) $7 million
Wolf Blitzer (CNN) $3 million
Christiane Amanpour (ABC) $2 million
Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) $2 million
Eliot Spitzer (CNN) $500,000

Maybe we'd get back to a time when those in News broadcasting actually held the job for the love of journalism instead of the $ and fame.

[onenote]

55. When did those in news broadcasting not care about $ and fame?

[LiberalLovinLug]

58. That's my point

If there wasn't the incentive of huge $ salaries, because of the lack of profits to the networks, the only ones taking the jobs would be those that had a passion for informing the public over a million dollar cottage and 3 luxury cars. (ie. Amy Goodman)

And also they wouldn't be beholden to the big corporations and their agenda because of personal greed.

[onenote]

59. ok. since you had suggested we needed to get "back to a time" I assumed you thought there

had been such a time in the past.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. When?

&feature=player_detailpage#t=22s

[Auggie]

36. I'd call that bluff ... it'll cost them hundreds of millions in lost ad revenue

[onenote]

53. On the other hand, they face the loss of hundreds of millions in retransmission consent

and copyright royalty fees if Aereo doesn't have to pay the same fees as cable and satellite. Cable and satellite pay the big broadcast networks and their affiliates over $2 billion a year for retransmission consent (with projections that it will reach $6 billion in a few years). The cable and satellite industries also pay another $300 million in copyright royalty fees.

That said, I do believe that Fox is bluffing. Not because they don't think in the long run they can be successful -- possibly more successful -- giving up their over the air service, but because the timing isn't right quite yet.

[Auggie]

56. Timing isn't right ... good point

Because Aereo will result in greater reach, meaning Fox could charge more for commericals. It's another channel of distribution. Cable isn't going away.

[Roland99]

37. How is this really any different then hooking up a PC to a TV with an antenna now?

That's what I do.

Have a networked two-tuner device and my HTPC going to the TV and we record shows and skip commercials and pause and rewind, etc. (not to mention anything that can be watched online via a PC we can view on the TV, too)

Only difference is this just saves a person the trouble of hooking up an antenna.

[MADem]

42. Pretty please, then? They are providing a service, the very same way cable provides a service.

The origins of cable TV were as follows--some bozo put up a giant, big-ass antennae in a town, better than anyone else's antennae, and ran "cables" from it to homes in the area. The lucky people with "cable" got better reception--and more stations-- than any of their neighbors with roof-top antennaes or rabbit ears.

No one crabbed when all "cable" TV was, was a damn good antennae and a private delivery mechanism. That's all this guy is gonna do, using a 21st century wireless delivery mechanism.

I think this is fantastic--and it will be so helpful to people who move around a lot and are sick of paying through the nose for cable.

At the least, perhaps cable pricing will start going in the direction it needs to go--which is south.

[RKP5637]

46. I use OTA digital here ... it works reasonably well. The cable outfit here wants $75/mo for

really basic cable ... you get the same OTA channels and then they throw in some other crap most people don't want. For $900/yr., one can get a hell of a good HDTV antenna.

[MADem]

49. I have a shack in the far, far north.

It's very close to Canada, and I can still (so far, anyway) get analogue OTA from them. But I do get two digital channels (one is actually four channels, a split PBS thing--though I can't usually get more than two of them at any one time). When I get them, they're brilliant. When they don't come in, if the weather is a bit shifty, it's time for a DVD or the radio! If I had a "serious" antennae I could probably do better, but I am not there enough to make it worth the money. I do take your point, though--it's HD TV, OTA, when it's a good signal! If you''re in an area where there are lots of channels, and you have decent internet, a Netflix subscription, HULU plus, and/or just buying the shows you want (like Boardwalk Empire or Mad Men or whatever) could save a fortune. AND....if you're real frugal, wait a year and take 'em out from the library!

[onenote]

51. Of course, since 1976, cable's retransmission of broadcast signals has triggered copyright liability

[dipsydoodle]

54. That issue was sorted in the UK late 1920's.

The court case the outcome of which is the subject here wouldn't even reach a UK court.

[hue]

47. This is really awesome!!! and it's about time!!! RW propaganda monopoly down the drain!!

[onenote]

50. Huh?

How will the Fox broadcast network becoming a cable network (a la Fox News) send the RW propaganda monopoly down the drain?

[dipsydoodle]

52. Aside from which

if Fox drop off air others may chose to join them.

[BlueStreak]

57. It is not Faux "News". It is Fox Entertainment they are talking about

Aereo picks up local broadcast signals and delivers them over the Internet. It isn't "free" in the sense that the local feeds all have advertising. But ti certainly avoids cable charges if all you want to watch is content that comes over-the-air in some market.

As far as I know Faux "news" isn't in over-the-air in any markets.