# Keep your fingers crossed Aereo customers. Today's our day in the SCOTUS. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2014, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664 "2014-04-22T10:15:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/141 "2014-06-25T15:20:09Z")
The many antennas loophole was a blatantly sharp attempt to evade the clear intent of the law. It should not have taken the Supreme Court to slap it down. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/142 "2014-06-25T15:57:36Z")
Damn! I hope Aereo decides to keep the company going. I’ll gladly pay a higher premium so they can pay their re transmission fees. It sure beats giving it to the cable companies. Heck, maybe some good will come out of this and they may be able to upgrade their system and offer more services like say NON antenna stations. I mean heck, if they’re going to be paying retransmission fees, might as well bring them into the fold too. ETA: I’m not exactly thrilled that Scalia was on my side. (((shudder))) ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/143 "2014-06-25T16:29:39Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Btw, a decision came down today: > > [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461\_l537.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf) > > Aereo is to be treated like a cable provider and pay retransmission fees to networks. It was a 6-3 decision. Opinion was written by Breyer. Scalia was in dissent (joined by Thomas and Alito). The breakdown surprised me - you wouldn’t expect the liberals to side with corporations and three of the conservatives to side against them. And is the only problem retransmission fees? I have a feeling the NFL, for example, breathed a sigh of relief, since now people can’t use Aereo to get around the blackout rules (“The Raiders are blacked out _again_? No problem; I’ll just get the game from the other team’s city’s CBS broadcast”). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/144 "2014-06-25T16:37:13Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > The breakdown surprised me - you wouldn’t expect the liberals to side with corporations and three of the conservatives to side against them. It doesn’t surprise me at all. This is not a liberal-conservative issue. Indeed, there is rarely a liberal-conservative split on intellectual property issues. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/145 "2014-06-25T17:08:23Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > No problem; I’ll just get the game from the other team’s city’s CBS broadcast"). That wasn’t ever a possibility. Aereo doesn’t allow you to receive transmissions from other cities. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/146 "2014-06-25T17:38:40Z")
Aereo doesn’t allow you to do it today. That doesn’t mean they’re never going to do it. For example, what is the reasoning behind me (a NJ resident) being refused the opportunity to rent an antenna in Chicago? Time-share antennas. I want to rent a Chicago antenna today, and get Chicago-area local news and shows, I use my time share subscription to access a Chicago antenna. If they had won, I can almost guarantee that they’d go the multi-city route, and argue that it’s already been established they they are not violating copyright with their 1 antenna to 1 subscriber model, it doesn’t matter how far away the antenna is from the subscriber’s home. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/147 "2014-06-25T18:41:15Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Aereo doesn’t allow you to do it today. That doesn’t mean they’re never going to do it. For example, what is the reasoning behind me (a NJ resident) being refused the opportunity to rent an antenna in Chicago? Time-share antennas. I want to rent a Chicago antenna today, and get Chicago-area local news and shows, I use my time share subscription to access a Chicago antenna. > > If they had won, I can almost guarantee that they’d go the multi-city route, and argue that it’s already been established they they are not violating copyright with their 1 antenna to 1 subscriber model, it doesn’t matter how far away the antenna is from the subscriber’s home. I wont argue this because I think you make a valid point. But one of their main arguing pointy was basically this: Aereo: "You see that **Shakes** over there broadcasters? Well you see, **Shakes** actually lives in your (OTA) broadcast area. He _is_ your intended audience when you broadcast those signals over the airwaves. But the thing is, **Shakes** lives in a 1st floor apartment where getting a signal from an antenna is basically impossible. So how about you guys let us help you out and let us give **Shakes** a good signal. That way when he watches your channel he’ll get a crystal clear picture when he’s taking in your commercials. And heck, who knows, he might even be inclined to buy from your sponsors. That’s a good thing aint it? No? Okay then." ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/148 "2014-06-25T19:17:25Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > I wont argue this because I think you make a valid point. > > But one of their main arguing pointy was basically this: > > Aereo: "You see that **Shakes** over there broadcasters? Well you see, **Shakes** actually lives in your (OTA) broadcast area. He _is_ your intended audience when you broadcast those signals over the airwaves. But the thing is, **Shakes** lives in a 1st floor apartment where getting a signal from an antenna is basically impossible. So how about you guys let us help you out and let us give **Shakes** a good signal. That way when he watches your channel he’ll get a crystal clear picture when he’s taking in your commercials. And heck, who knows, he might even be inclined to buy from your sponsors. That’s a good thing aint it? > > No? Okay then." Okay fine. There’s a provision under the cable TV statute that allows you to do that. Comply with those provisions. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/149 "2014-06-25T19:49:00Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > [I really hope they win.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/aereo-case-goes-to-supreme-court/2014/04/21/50bbd1e8-c59d-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html) > > 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 the FCC were a bit more consumer friendly instead of beinga captive regulator, I would proabbly find the government case more appealing but as it is, it looks like the FCC doing the bidding of large monied interests under their jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/150 "2014-06-25T21:09:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If the FCC were a bit more consumer friendly instead of beinga captive regulator, I would proabbly find the government case more appealing but as it is, it looks like the FCC doing the bidding of large monied interests under their jurisdiction. Scalia called them on that: [ > [@](#): > > But Breyer said the court did not intend to call cloud computing into question. > > Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia said he shares the majority’s feeling that what Aereo is doing “ought not to be allowed.” But he said the court has distorted federal copyright law to forbid it. > > Congress should decide whether the law “needs an upgrade,” Scalia said.]([http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US\_SUPREME\_COURT\_TV\_ON\_THE\_INTERNET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-25-13-35-41](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_TV_ON_THE_INTERNET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-25-13-35-41)) And I found [a slightly better article about Scalia’s opinion from _Business Insider_: > [@](#): > > While Scalia feels Aereo’s actions likely do violate networks’ rights, he wrote that the court’s decision to label them as “public performance” distorted the Copyright Act. > > “That claim fails at the very outset because Aereo does not perform at all,” Scalia writes. > > Not only does Aereo not perform, in Scalia’s mind, if it did, it still wouldn’t directly violate copyright, which the networks claim. > > “This suit, or rather the portion before us here, is fundamentally different,” Scalia writes. > > Two types of liability exist for copyright infringement: direct and secondary. Most suits against equipment manufacturers, like Aereo, constitute secondary liability. In a legal sense, that means holding the defendants responsible for intentionally inducing or encouraging infringing acts — considered a “volitional act” — without actually doing so themselves. > > Video-on-demand services, like Netflix, choose their content, which Scalia considers a volitional act. But at a “copy shop,” as Scalia calls Aereo, customers choose what they wish to re-create. > > “So which is Aereo: the copy shop or the video-on-demand service? In truth, it is neither,” Scalia writes. “Rather, it is akin to a copy shop that provides patrons with a library card.” > > Aereo doesn’t provide a pre-arranged assortment of television shows. The antennae act as “library cards,” according to Scalia, allowing users to pick up any broadcast freely available. Some are copyrighted. Some aren’t. > > “In sum, Aereo does not ‘perform’ for the sole and simple reason that it does not make the choice of content,” Scalia writes. “And because Aereo does not perform, it cannot be held directly liable for infringing the Networks’ public-performance right.” > > But that doesn’t mean Scalia lets Aereo off the hook. He doesn’t. > > “I share the Court’s feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed,” he writes. “But perhaps we need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it.” ]([Why Justice Scalia Dissented on Aereo - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-justice-scalia-dissented-on-aereo-2014-6)) I agree with Justice Scalia in that I think the biggest thing is that the Copyright Act and especially the DMCA need some work (I’d suggest removing “copyright in perpetuity” clauses as a starting point). And IMO anytime language and intent has to be so tortured to be able to render the decision that is desired (perhaps instead of the decision that is called for), it’s gonna lead to unforeseen problems down the road. But by it’s nature, that’s a “wait and see” kinda thing, so we’ll just have to wait and see. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/151 "2014-06-26T19:50:09Z")
Weird. Aereo is still selling subscriptions. These guy are going to be shut down in a couple of weeks! I was hoping they might be able to stay in business but things aren’t looking good for them. [Link](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/aereo-supreme-court-ruling-24305462) ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/152 "2014-11-22T00:42:16Z")
filed for Chapter 11. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Plutonium\_Kid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@The\_Plutonium\_Kid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Plutonium_Kid)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/153 "2014-11-29T21:17:36Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …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? Because they’re only providing a connection to your own individual antenna and a service for recording OTA broadcasts. Sure, you can buy your own antenna and DVR, but many places have very poor OTA reception. Aereo provides an antenna way up high up there in the sky, so you’re likely to get better reception and more channels. It isn’t really any different than those big apartment buildings that provided a single high quality antenna on the roof connected to every apartment. Inasmuch as Aereo doesn’t eliminate the advertising upon which OTA depends, it can’t reasonably be said that they’re depriving anybody of income. Really. Demanding royalties fees for providing an internet connection to a well-placed antenna is like GM demanding a cut of the deal when you rent a car from a rental company, or the NFL demanding royalties when someone rents a big screen TV to watch the Superbowl. I know this is dangerously close to a zombie thread, but I really hate what they did to Aereo. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/154 "2014-11-30T00:14:02Z")
> [@The\_Plutonium\_Kid](#): > > It isn’t really any different than those big apartment buildings that provided a single high quality antenna on the roof connected to every apartment. You have just described community access television or CATV, which is regulated as a cable service by the Cable Act. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/155 "2014-11-30T06:57:58Z")
> [@The\_Plutonium\_Kid](#): > > Because they’re only providing a connection to your own individual antenna and a service for recording OTA broadcasts. Sure, you can buy your own antenna and DVR, but many places have very poor OTA reception. Aereo provides an antenna way up high up there in the sky, so you’re likely to get better reception and more channels. It isn’t really any different than those big apartment buildings that provided a single high quality antenna on the roof connected to every apartment. Inasmuch as Aereo doesn’t eliminate the advertising upon which OTA depends, it can’t reasonably be said that they’re depriving anybody of income. > > Really. Demanding royalties fees for providing an internet connection to a well-placed antenna is like GM demanding a cut of the deal when you rent a car from a rental company, or the NFL demanding royalties when someone rents a big screen TV to watch the Superbowl. > > I know this is dangerously close to a zombie thread, but I really hate what they did to Aereo. …well your theory didn’t work out too well for them did it? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/156 "2014-11-30T07:02:06Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …well your theory didn’t work out too well for them did it? Only for the same reason the cable companies get to be de facto monopolies and net neutrality is not an obvious slam dunk. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664/157 "2014-12-01T03:23:50Z")
The cable companies get to be monopolies because your city and county governments like it that way. They don’t want multiple cable operations tearing up the streets and taking up space on the public right-of-ways to lay cable which might then be abandoned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/keep-your-fingers-crossed-aereo-customers-todays-our-day-in-the-scotus/686664.md?page=7)