US Supreme Court rules Aereo's streaming service is illegal under copyright law

In a precedent-setting decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that Aereo is in violation of US copyright law. The decision states that Aereo's use of tiny antennas hooked up to cloud DVR technology violates the right of companies producing broadcast content.

....

The decision is backed up by the Supreme Court's history with cable companies. In 1976, the Copyright Act deemed the rebroadcast of airwave-based television via cable a performance. As a result, cable companies had to pay broadcast networks for access to content. Today's ruling states that Aereo is essentially in the same boat as cable TV companies. "Aereo's activities are substantially similar to those of the [cable television] companies that Congress amended the Act to reach," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer writes.

Click to expand...

SOURCE

Very unfortunate news, and potentially with some significant ramficiations as it relates to cloud computing services. What is interesting from an immediete look....this extremely PRO-Corporation interpritation of the law that benefits the likes of NBC and Fox was endorsed not by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia but by Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Aereo was offering people hardware that allowed them to better make use of something they are able to recieve for free; but god forbid anything shake up the HORRENDOUS situation we have in this country as it relates to anything concerning the telecoms and media conglomorates

And the corporate congress gets closer and closer.....

Copywrite legislation world wide needs to be ripped up and a new modern system put in place.

Zyphlin said:

SOURCE

Very unfortunate news, and potentially with some significant ramficiations as it relates to cloud computing services. What is interesting from an immediete look....this extremely PRO-Corporation interpritation of the law that benefits the likes of NBC and Fox was endorsed not by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia but by Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Aereo was offering people hardware that allowed them to better make use of something they are able to recieve for free; but god forbid anything shake up the HORRENDOUS situation we have in this country as it relates to anything concerning the telecoms and media conglomorates

Click to expand...

the problem exists that tv companies still have to pay for such broadcasts. they are only free as in people can get them, but the companies still have to pay broadcasting fee's and other things.

not sure why another company should profit at no expense.

Zyphlin said:

SOURCE

Very unfortunate news, and potentially with some significant ramficiations as it relates to cloud computing services. What is interesting from an immediete look....this extremely PRO-Corporation interpritation of the law that benefits the likes of NBC and Fox was endorsed not by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia but by Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Aereo was offering people hardware that allowed them to better make use of something they are able to recieve for free; but god forbid anything shake up the HORRENDOUS situation we have in this country as it relates to anything concerning the telecoms and media conglomorates

Click to expand...

Meh, generally in situations like this I'm upset too, but I can understand both sides on this. Furthermore:

"Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, stressed that it was a limited decision that will not “discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies.”"
Source: U.S. Supreme Court Pulls the Plug on Aereo's Streaming TV Service - NBC News

So yes, it always sucks anytime technology is driven back, but I don't think this court case will have significant ramifications. I don't know much legalese, but it seems this ruling applies simply to this situation.

Not good for tech or for the consumer, for sure.

Helix said:

Not good for tech or for the consumer, for sure.

Click to expand...

I agree, but is it an unfair one? Should Aereo be able to make money off content they didn't produce?

It's a tough one and why I see both sides.

ludin said:

the problem exists that tv companies still have to pay for such broadcasts. they are only free as in people can get them, but the companies still have to pay broadcasting fee's and other things.

not sure why another company should profit at no expense.

Click to expand...

The companies are transmitting over the air anyway. What Aereo provided was individual equipment rental that the consumer controlled.

Aereo provided a niche market for two types of consumers, those in a geogrpahic area that might have difficulty receiving OTA (over-the-air) broadcasts due to buildings or hills, and (b) consumers that wanted a way to stream OTA to mobile devices.

Both of which mean MORE eyeballs on screens and a bigger bang for the advertiser.



>>>>

Slyfox696 said:

I agree, but is it an unfair one? Should Aereo be able to make money off content they didn't produce?

It's a tough one and why I see both sides.

Click to expand...

Aereo wasn't making money off content, they leased equipment and storage space to the consumer. An individual could open an account, pay their $8 per month then go on vacation to Europe for 3-months, and Aereo made the same amount because the equipment was there for the consumer whether they used it or not. That equipment accessed zero content.

I have a Samsung TV, they make money off of the equipment used to display content they didn't produce.

I'm now thinking of buying a Slingbox. It connects to me Antenna/Cable Box and will allow me to stream video to my laptop or smartphone while I'm out of the house, they are making profit on content they didn't produce.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

The companies are transmitting over the air anyway. What Aereo provided was individual equipment rental that the consumer controlled.

Aereo provided a niche market for two types of consumers, those in a geogrpahic area that might have difficulty receiving OTA (over-the-air) broadcasts due to buildings or hills, and (b) consumers that wanted a way to stream OTA to mobile devices.

Both of which mean MORE eyeballs on screens and a bigger bang for the advertiser.



>>>>

Click to expand...

doesn't matter you still have to have licensing fee's to pay for it just as the broadcasters have to pay fee's to the shows.
while they might transmitt it for free they still have to pay for broadcasting. they make that up with advertisements.

aero's was making money without having to pay for the cost of it.

i don't like the ruling but i can see where it would come into play at.

slingbox is next and they are going to go after them mostly due to dish network.

ludin said:

the problem exists that tv companies still have to pay for such broadcasts.

Click to expand...

By TV companies do you mean FOX, NBC, CBS, etc? Or are you meaning the cable companies like Time Warner (which I guess IS NBC...gotta love how that works), Verizon, Cox, etc?

they are only free as in people can get them

Click to expand...

Yes, they're "free" to the consumer. IE anyone can hook up an antenna and watch over the air content 100% free of charge.

but the companies still have to pay broadcasting fee's and other things.

Click to expand...

Except, in general, Aereo's argument is THEY are not broadcasting anything. They're selling you an antenna and a set top box, and giving you access to those things via the internet. You have complete control as to what that Antenna is tuned to and that is the ONLY thing you're recieving. With Cable Companies, you're potentially recieving all channels at all times. This is how something like "The Hopper" can record 6 different television shows on 6 different channels all at the same time. With Aereo, you could only have ONE channel going per antenna you were renting at any given time. You want to record something on a different channel while you're watching something, you'd need to rent another antenna.

As to expense...well, one, there IS expense on the part of Aereo. They have to pay for the equipment they're renting out to customers, pay for the utility costs for the broadband and electricity to give users access to their rented equipment, pay for the building the equipment is housed in, technicians, etc.

Slyfox696 said:

I agree, but is it an unfair one? Should Aereo be able to make money off content they didn't produce?

It's a tough one and why I see both sides.

Click to expand...

Every manufacturer of over the air broadcast antenna's is making money off content they didn't produce.

Zyphlin said:

By TV companies do you mean FOX, NBC, CBS, etc? Or are you meaning the cable companies like Time Warner (which I guess IS NBC...gotta love how that works), Verizon, Cox, etc?



Yes, they're "free" to the consumer. IE anyone can hook up an antenna and watch over the air content 100% free of charge.



Except, in general, Aereo's argument is THEY are not broadcasting anything. They're selling you an antenna and a set top box, and giving you access to those things via the internet. You have complete control as to what that Antenna is tuned to and that is the ONLY thing you're recieving. With Cable Companies, you're potentially recieving all channels at all times. This is how something like "The Hopper" can record 6 different television shows on 6 different channels all at the same time. With Aereo, you could only have ONE channel going per antenna you were renting at any given time. You want to record something on a different channel while you're watching something, you'd need to rent another antenna.

As to expense...well, one, there IS expense on the part of Aereo. They have to pay for the equipment they're renting out to customers, pay for the utility costs for the broadband and electricity to give users access to their rented equipment, pay for the building the equipment is housed in, technicians, etc.

Click to expand...

that is it though they are renting equipment to rebroadcast a signal and not paying for it.

dish bh etc all have to pay licensing fee's to broadcast those stations. so why does aereo not have to comply?

Zyphlin said:

SOURCE

Very unfortunate news, and potentially with some significant ramficiations as it relates to cloud computing services. What is interesting from an immediete look....this extremely PRO-Corporation interpritation of the law that benefits the likes of NBC and Fox was endorsed not by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia but by Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Aereo was offering people hardware that allowed them to better make use of something they are able to recieve for free; but god forbid anything shake up the HORRENDOUS situation we have in this country as it relates to anything concerning the telecoms and media conglomorates

Click to expand...

I'm usually very skeptical of established industries claims in cases like this but I'm confused as to how this isn't a violation of the cable companies rights. Isn't Aereo essentially re-broadcasting their content for profit by coordinating these antenna installations? I'm not sure they are worthy of too much sympathy. Either way I'm not sure why this would have such an impact... who doesn't just stream everything these days?

The bottom line is that Aereo sells "free" content produced by others; without that content then they have nothing to sell.

Slyfox696 said:

I agree, but is it an unfair one? Should Aereo be able to make money off content they didn't produce?

It's a tough one and why I see both sides.

Click to expand...

agreed that it's a tough issue. we need to seriously take a look at modernizing the law. unfortunately, if we did modernize it, the legislation would be written by lobbyists, and then the problem would probably get worse.

ttwtt78640 said:

The bottom line is that Aereo sells "free" content produced by others; without that content then they have nothing to sell.

Click to expand...

By this logic those who manufacture and sell over the air antennas need to pay the broadcast companies, because without the "free" content produced by others they would have nothing to sell.

Here's a question in terms of questioning where the differences lie.

Scenario 1.

You buy and set up an antenna on your house, have a cable card hooked up to your computer so it acts as a DVR, and have your computer able to be accessed via the internet. While you're off staying at your in-laws place for a holiday you use Tablet to access a TV channel coming off your "DVR" that is being pulled down via your antenna feed.

Scenario 2

You rent an antenna set up in a warehouse in your viewing area, have it hooked up to a DVR, that is then hooked up to the internet. While you're off staying at your in-laws place for a holiday you use your tablet to access a TV channel coming off your rented DVR that is being pulled down by your rented antenna feed.

So here's the differences that I can see:

1. In one situation the items are owned, the other instance the items are rented. Then again, one is able to rent antenna's and computers for ones home so that doesn't really change much. But even if it did...could aereo actually SELL you the hardware, with you entering into a contracto "pay" for the hardware via "$X" monthly charges for X months and suddenly it'd be okay?

2. The antenna is located in a location other than your home. So does that mean if I put my home antenna up on the townhome I'm attached to because they have better reecption that suddenly it's an illegal broadcast because I'm not physically housing my antenna?

3. One portion of the internet access is not something I'm paying for. But again this goes up...if my neighbor lets me use his wifi, is that suddenly now an illegal problem?

Zyphlin said:

By this logic those who manufacture and sell over the air antennas need to pay the broadcast companies, because without the "free" content produced by others they would have nothing to sell.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Selling hardware is not the same as selling content. Using your bizarre "logic" then selling TV sets, or even eye glasses, is also taking advantage of content produced by others.

ttwtt78640 said:

Selling hardware is not the same as selling content.

Click to expand...

But they're not selling content, they're renting hardware to consumers and giving them access to that hardware.

Cable companies charge you for the information they deliver AND for the hardware you wnat to get to facilitate that delivery. Even without the cable companies hardware, you're still able to get your channels that you're paying for on every TV in your house by hooking into your cable outlet. And because Cable is broadcasting all the stations, not just providing you with your own antenna, one room could be watching CBS and another one could be watching FOX and one could be watching NBC because the Cable Company is streaming all that data into your house at all times.

Aereo is only charging you for hardware. Without that hardware there is nothing you can get from them. With that hardware you can only view what you use YOUR rented hardware to see. So if your rented hardware is tuned to NBC that's all you get whether you have 1 viewing device hooked up or 10. Because Aereo is not "broadcasting" network television to you, they're providing you access to an antenna whose singular feed you can see.

Zyphlin said:

But they're not selling content, they're renting hardware to consumers and giving them access to that hardware.

Cable companies charge you for the information they deliver AND for the hardware you wnat to get to facilitate that delivery. Even without the cable companies hardware, you're still able to get your channels that you're paying for on every TV in your house by hooking into your cable outlet. And because Cable is broadcasting all the stations, not just providing you with your own antenna, one room could be watching CBS and another one could be watching FOX and one could be watching NBC because the Cable Company is streaming all that data into your house at all times.

Aereo is only charging you for hardware. Without that hardware there is nothing you can get from them. With that hardware you can only view what you use YOUR rented hardware to see. So if your rented hardware is tuned to NBC that's all you get whether you have 1 viewing device hooked up or 10. Because Aereo is not "broadcasting" network television to you, they're providing you access to an antenna whose singular feed you can see.

Click to expand...

Aereo is not renting hardware they are selling a service that consists of retransmitting live and recorded content.

Aereo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorta glad this happened because I'd heard that broadcast companies or corporations were pondering suspending or doing away with OTA transmissions. Since I have neither cable or satellite television, and rely only on OTA broadcasts, it would put me out in the cold with no television to watch, I'd end up having to pay someone for some content.

It's a shame that people don't think that content creators have the right to control how their content is distributed. Yes, the content is over air but the content providers have agreed to have it distributed this way. If the service didn't charge, then I think think they would have been on better standing.

WorldWatcher said:

Aereo wasn't making money off content, they leased equipment and storage space to the consumer.

Click to expand...

Without the content they are rebroadcasting, they would have nothing to sell.

Zyphlin said:

Every manufacturer of over the air broadcast antenna's is making money off content they didn't produce.

Click to expand...

It's different, but you do make a good point.

Helix said:

agreed that it's a tough issue. we need to seriously take a look at modernizing the law. unfortunately, if we did modernize it, the legislation would be written by lobbyists, and then the problem would probably get worse.

Click to expand...

So very true. It's a shame money plays such a part in politics.

ttwtt78640 said:

Aereo is not renting hardware they are selling a service that consists of retransmitting live and recorded content.

Aereo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

From your own link: "Aereo leased each user an individual remote antenna,[6][7][8] allowing subscribers to view live broadcast television and allowed users to record the broadcasts for later viewing.[6] "


Aereo had no control over what channel the consumer recorded. The leased the hardware.


>>>>

ludin said:

the problem exists that tv companies still have to pay for such broadcasts. they are only free as in people can get them, but the companies still have to pay broadcasting fee's and other things.

not sure why another company should profit at no expense.

Click to expand...

Broadcasters sell advertising to cover their costs, Aereo does not strip out the advertisements. They do provide a DVR, which can allow for skipping commercials, but it is perfectly legal for consumers to own a DVR. Aereo provides convenience withouttaking away anything from the broadcasters. The reason broadcasters object is that Aereo competes with the cable companies that pay broadcasters for retransmission.