I waited for these guys to come to my city before I cut the cable. I don’t know what I’ll do if they lose!
If they lose, Aereo will still exist but they will have to pay licensing fees for the content that they retransmit – like every other programming service does. And they should.
No they shouldn’t. I’m not paying for programing, I’m leasing an OTA. The difference being, when I use services like Hulu or Netflix I have access to any of their content I want on demand.
With Aereo, just like with a regular antenna, when I log in, I can only watch what is playing in real time in my local market. I can record shows, but I have to be proactive about it. If I don’t make an effort to record X show, I won’t get to watch it.
…all I know about this story is what you’ve linked to. And based on that story I have no idea why you should think this way. Why shouldn’t they pay licence fees?
If you were to take your signals and retransmit them to people who were paying you, you would have to pay licensing fees. Aereo isn’t doing anything different than what cable and satellite did when they started up – retransmitting in real time.
Dude, they’ve made it all the way to SCOTUS with out a single injunction. Think about that. Mega media players CBS, NBC and ABC were unable to get a single injunction against a small time start up company through all the lower courts.
Besides, license fees for what? An antenna?
…I was asking for your opinion dude. I don’t live in the United States and I don’t really care about your SCOTUS. Why do you think they shouldn’t pay licence fees?
Because they don’t have to.
…until SCOTUS rules otherwise of course, as they should.
Why do you think they shouldn’t have to pay licence fees? Or do you think they should?
That’s not how it works.
Cable companies have a direct stream from the broadcaster. They take that single stream and rebroadcast it to thousands of people.
Aereo OTOH, doesn’t have a direct stream from the broadcasters. They grab their data from OTA. Also, they can’t take that single transmission and rebroadcast it to thousands of people. For every customer they have, they have to have a separate antenna.
So if they have 10,000 customers, that means somewhere in the city the have 10,000 little antennas set up receiving signals for 10,000 customers.
If I leased you an antenna to set up on your rooftop, should I have to pay a license fee?
They should not pay content retransmission fees for the same reason that I shouldn’t pay content retransmission fees. The reason is because they are not required under the existing legal framework to do so.
…I’m looking forward then to the change of the existing legal framework so they can pay their dues like everyone else. Can you explain why you think that they shouldn’t or are all the Aereo supporters going to just keep being cryptic?
Did you not read my previous post?
If a customer wants to switch what he is watching, does AEREO assign him to a new antenna or do they re-orient his existing antenna?
…yep. I don’t see any technical reasons why they shouldn’t have to pay a licence fee: at least from a moral perspective anyway.
Television productions cost a lot of money to make. Aereo have inserted themselves as a middleman and are on selling something that they have contributed zero money towards without the permission of the content creators. Seems like a pretty scummy thing to do.
Let me see if I can make this more clear.
Here in the civilized world, people do not pay money for the privilege to receive terrestrial broadcasts. The prevailing theory is that anybody who wants to send electromagnetic radiation into the atmosphere may expect that anyone else can receive that signal and do with it what they please. I am not required to pay WPIX a fee if I put an antenna on my roof to receive channel 11. I do not have to pay a fee if I want to amplify that signal for my own use, or transmit it over my house’s IP network for use by a DVR or whatever other machinations I may come up with.
Aereo is a service that leases individual television antennas to their users and allows their users to receive the signals from their antenna over the Internet. They are not doing anything that any individual user could not do if they invested in an antenna and some networking gear. That is why they are not required to seek or pay for retransmission consent.
Is that how a regular antenna works? (No)
Again, if I lease you an antenna to put on your rooftop,should I have to pay a license fee?
If no, then what difference does it make is that same antenna is 10 miles down the road?
Were VCR manufacturers scumsucking copyright leeches? Aereo turns OTA transmissions into digital streams that can be sent to internet ready devices. Aereo took the time to develop the platform and infrastructure to do this; why shouldn’t they be monetarily rewarded.
Reading the articles, it looks like the corporations are getting nervous about the growing number of people who are ‘cutting the cord’. I would recommend they focus on developing products and services that people want, rather than litigating out of existence those same products and services people want.
…wow: they really are doing something quite scummy. This really wasn’t the intent of those forty-year-old laws. Hopefully SCOTUS rules against Aereo so they can pay their dues like everyone else.
Make up your mind. Do you care about SCOTUS, or do you not?