Aereo suspends service after Supreme Court ruling
Source: AP-EXCITE
NEW YORK (AP) Online-streaming service Aereo Inc. is temporarily closing down its operation, three days after it was dealt an unfavorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps," Aereo said in a letter to customers posted on its website Saturday.
The Supreme Court dealt Aereo, backed by Barry Diller, a major setback on Wednesday in ruling that the television-over-the-Internet service operates much like a cable TV company. As a result, the service violates copyright law unless Aereo pays broadcasters licensing fees for offering TV stations to customers' tablets, phones and other gadgets.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140628/us--aereo-suspension-8857b01dea.html
dembotoz
(16,826 posts)i was hopeful
not optimistic
but hopeful
msongs
(67,436 posts)shut down nt
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)Please understand that the people who make television shows are workersUNION workers. They are laborers, from the actors to the lighting technicians, cameramen, writers, and thousands and thousands of others who labor to produce content. Some of it's crap, some of it's great, but it all costs money to make. Because people need to get paid for their jobs: both salaries and benefits and pensions. Content doesn't materialize out of thin air.
So when someone wants to come along and just lift the stuff that other people have made and use it to make money for themselves, I am with the Supreme Court in stopping them. If someone thought up a "better mousetrap" that consisted of stealing all the refrigerators or washing machines that people make and giving them away in return for money from advertising and data-mining ... well, we'd think that was nuts. And people would stop making washing machines.
Nothing is free in life, my friend.
jayfish
(10,039 posts)The OTA channels, which are supposed to be supported by advertising, are available in their respective local markets only. Local and nation advertising was preserved. Good on you to stick up for double-dipping big media though. ...my friend.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Good on you for not giving a crap about the cultural workers. But thanks for standing up for advertisers. Sheesh: what is it you don't understand about this?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... it was a subterfuge used simply to evade the law. If your intent was simply to provide a service that transmits shows over the internet, the technology would not be anything like the technology they were using. It was a sham.
rickford66
(5,528 posts)Broadcasters make money from advertisers. The more people who view their channel, the more they can charge. Advertisers want as many people as possible to see their ads for as little money as possible. I would think it would be in both their interests to let someone re-broadcast their programs, at least with the agreement that it would be in total. i.e. no censorship, time shifting or ad blocking. I agree with the court, but why is it this way? It's almost like it should be the other way around. The re-broadcasters should be able to charge the broadcasters.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)This is the regulatory paradigm which Aereo was trying to evade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must_carry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Not necessarily. The networks and producers of the content get revenue from national advertisers. The broadcasters get revenue from local businesses. The local businesses are not going to pay more because someone on the other side of the country is watching the show.
rickford66
(5,528 posts)Not much of a market for local broadcasts sent to the other coast. What would be the point? I think the market for this is for people who can't get local TV and either can't get cable or don't want cable. We live in a no-man's land where there will never be cable. Not enough customers. Most of our neighbors have dishes and many are disconnected. We live on a hill with a direct view of the transmitters. We receive 9 local and 2 distant digital channels, but we usually watch only the 3 PBS channels. If we lived in a hollow, the Aereo system would be a good choice.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... is not my understanding of their business model. I could be wrong. But they were definitely trying to compete with cable TV that has to pay to carry these stations. I don't think its right to deprive the local broadcast company and the folks who produce the shows of the proceeds of their efforts.
rickford66
(5,528 posts)locals receiving them and agree to let it be rebroadcast but not taken without permission. But I don't have a dog in this fight.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... the broadcasters WOULD want to collect a fee for the re-transmission. But they would also have to pay the CONTENT OWNERs - CBS, NBC, etc. Here is what I found on a "myth busting" wrap up of the case:
MYTH #1: This ruling puts Aereo out of business.
Reality: Aereo was relying on a fairly straightforward business model of charging customers a base fee of $8 for content that it paid nothing for. To continue offering its service, it will need to negotiate deals with the major networks, CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC. Of those, the greatest leverage by far belongs to CBS, which has a primetime lineup that people still actually watch and also a slate of NFL games. For that reason, CBS was able to squeeze a $2/month fee per customer out of Time Warner when the two did battle last year.
But then their whole "individual antenna" scheme would be useless, since they were using that simply to AVOID paying for a license. If they pay for the license, they can use more straight forward technology.
CaptainTruth
(6,600 posts)I'm really surprised they didn't have better legal counsel, it's not that hard to legally do what they were trying to do.
I've spent many years working with copyright law & the broadcast industry. It's 100% legal for me to put up an antenna (my antenna, which I own for my personal use) to receive & watch TV programs. I can even record content to view later, either on local storage (DVR) or remote storage (remote server or cloud). The means & location of storage does not matter.
Now, imagine I lived in a valley & got crappy TV reception. It's perfectly legal for me to lease a small piece of land from my neighbor (who lives on a hilltop) & put my antenna on that piece of land. I can connect my antenna to my receiver in my house using a variety of means ... coaxial cable (perhaps with an RF signal booster or two), fiber optic cable, I could even use a data codec & "stream" it over the Internet to *one* IP address ... the IP address associated with the receiver in my home (the signal, the content, is not being "broadcast" to multiple receivers). All perfectly legal.
So, Aereo's business model should be:
1. Sell antennas to customers (each customer has their own privately-owned antenna).
2. Lease the customer a space for the antenna (perhaps a one-foot square rooftop or land area).
3. Aereo could charge the customer a fee for installing the customer's antenna on the leased land (optional of course).
4. Areo offers (& charges for) data storage which the customer can use to store recorded programs.
A basic service agreement could include the purchase of the antenna, lease of space for locating the antenna, possible antenna installation fee, & a charge for data storage.
Nothing is ever 100% certain when it comes to legal matters, but I think an arrangement like this would hold up in court.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... a yet more elaborate subterfuge to evade a law, the clear intent of which was to protect those who actually produce something of value from having the fruits of their labor taken from them without compensation or consent.
A much better business model would be to negotiate a re-transmission license.
rickford66
(5,528 posts)Tikki
(14,559 posts)The antenna receives many stations and the antenna can be hooked up for 4 TV sets.
Would it be legal for me to furnish the antenna lead to my renters for a fee? For free?
Tikki
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... a re-broadcaster. The provision of lots of little antennas was just a sham to skirt the law. They were, in intent and effect, doing what the law was designed to prohibit.
Used to have a communal antenna in many places, with wall connections just like cable. People are missing the issue. Aereo was using the antennas to try to bypass paying retransmission fees, but because they failed to look up the definition of that word, that by re-encoding the signal and sending it over the internet they were retransmitting.
You would include access to the antenna and other building a entities in your renter contract. It falls under "elevator" and "laundry"
But you cannot charge people directly for your service. You can sign punishing contracts with the local cable company however that requires them to use them, and create stupid rules that prohibit satellite dishes that may or may not pass court muster.
Bickle
(109 posts)I forget the case, but in the 70s, a community put up a big antenna on a mountaintop blocking TV signals, ran cable from said antenna, and charged a maintenance fee. Shot down by Supremes, because the issue was unlicensed profiteering. That antenna must be in your home, be owned by you, and no money changes hands. If any alteration f the signal occurs, which Aereo irrefutably does, you're cooked again.
Sling box gets by because they never touch the content, and each individual user must be sued, and have 5-6 figures spent proving they were transmitting.
Aereo will be bought by an existing cable company, who will use it as an anti cord cutter tool. That's what Barry Diller really wanted when he backed it anyway.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)they purchased and use.
Awesome thing is that out town's code allows antennas up the 40ft above grade
and I think it is because there are amateur radio operators dispersed throughout town.
Tikki