…the original Napster took the time to develop a platform and infrastructure as well. I’m glad that in the end they ultimately weren’t monetarily rewarded.
…but they are providing products and services that people want. Game of Thrones is identical whether or not it is delivered by the cable company or by Aereo. There isn’t a problem with the product. People (like with everything else) just want to pay less. Aereo can provide the product at a cheaper price: but they do that by not financially compensating the creators of the product they are selling.
Doesn’t matter what a “regular” antenna does. If a single AEREO antenna services multiple customers (even if not simulataneously) it is not as simple as “I lease you an antenna…”
I would say that the key word is simultaneously. As long as the antenna is not serving multiple people at one time then I don’t see the conceptual difference between this and physically moving an antenna from house to house on request. Can we all agree that the mere act of providing an antenna is not enough to trigger license fee requirements?
Aereo is not providing anything at a cheaper price. Aereo costs the consumer more. Aereo takes OTA transmissions, which the consumer can get for free as long as they purchase an antenna and makes it digital. In order to provide a cheaper product, Aereo would have to give its customers money. I would recommend actually understanding what you’re arguing against.
They do now. That’s not how cable worked when it was first set up. They did exactly what Aereo is doing. They set up antennas and retransmitted the signals to their subscribers.
…leasing a single antenna on your rooftop seems to fit in with the original intent of the law: so would not require a licence. Putting thousands of antenna 10 miles down the road does not seem to fit the original intent: and as you know at least in California the courts have ruled against a similar company.
This article in the New York Times quotes the founder and CEO of Aereo, Chet Kanojia on what happens if they lose the lawsuit, “There is no plan B.” I take that to mean that if they lose, they’ll shut the business. The article suggests that if Aereo wins, on the other hand, the broadcast networks might just stop broadcasting entirely and go cable/satellite only. In other words, it’s a huge decision for the broadcast industry. And if Aereo wins, does that then mean that Zediva.com’s business model is now legal? In 2011, they were a service that let you stream any recent movie available on DVD, without paying through the nose for streaming rights. The way they did it was to have a bank of DVD players and remotely stream the output of the DVD film to individual viewers.
Based on your previous posts and especially on the bolded comments, you don’t seem to understand the basic issues, case law or technologies involved in this at all.
…I understand the arguments made by Aereo have been rejected by the courts in California. I admitted in my first post in this thread that all I knew about this case was what I read in the initial article. When I asked why they shouldn’t pay licence fees I got mumbo jumbo as replies. It appears everything hinges on whether or not Aereo is providing a public or a private performance of the work: and two courts have so far come up with two different opinions.
As I understand it, this is a technology vs. content issue.
Aereo contends that they are simply selling the antenna, a piece of technology that grabs what’s on free airwaves. The networks are contending that they are selling content and therefore should pay licensing fees.
I guess it depends on which side you’re on, but I think a big part of the decision should be made based on the fact that these are free airwaves.
I have gotten conflicting info on a few points. Is there a dedicated antenna per subscriber or is it assigned as needed. I think Aereo would have a stronger case if they are able to claim, see this antenna right here 3rd row down 7 across on bank 2, that it Mr. Smiths antenna, that’s the one he rents from us and he is the one who controls it (as I understand the antennas they use are tuned electrically so are controlled remotely by channel selection by the customer).
If you get into a situation where Aereo is assigning a antenna per use you get away from who is in control of the antenna, a stipulation is the customer is in complete control, but not if someone else is controlling which antenna they are assigned on a ongoing basis. If the customer selected from a list of available ones per use that would put the customer back in control as I see it.
If Aereo selects a antenna on a per use basis then it is not the customer renting a antenna but renting access to a pool of many of them, which calls into question does this now violate the protection of a private preformance.
Aereo found a way to cheat the big boys … I can’t believe they made it this far.
No way are they going to win … if you transfer a video of me mowing my lawn shown on America’s Funniest Home Video’s that I sent in to them … I would want it protected by it’s original broadcaster ABC.
Movie stars have rights to be paid too … original content is original content.
If they don’t think they have to pay the fee, then why should they? If Aereo loses, then I’m sure they’ll work within the system, but better to try and fail than not try at all, especially if there’s a possibility you might win
Indeed. And that’s what the Aereo supporters are missing here. Aereo is doing basically what cable companies did in cable’s early days and cable had to pay retransmission fees. I don’t think Aereo’s argument that it is leasing you an antenna is going to hold muster, especially if your ‘leased antenna’ can shift (on the bigger antenna) depending on when you access the service.