It’s funny, because all this isn’t as cut and dried as some might imagine. In the UK, you do indeed have to pay to use an antenna. In Canada, we are ending our short (6 year) experiment that cable providers need to pay for carrying local (OTA) content.
You don’t get cable channels over OTA (over the air). You only get the local ABC, NBC, CBS affiliates and their sister stations.
As far as the remote DVR thing goes, if that’s illegal so is every other cloud based system.
The first statement is the beginning of something you forgot to complete? (BTW, most people get a lot more stations than network affiliates OTA.)
The second is really interesting, isn’t it? To see summaries of the SCOTUS arguments where people, including justices, are discussing cloud computing by name. Almost unreal.
In your previous post you used The Daily Show as one of your examples which led me to believe you don’t quite get what AEREO does. The Daily Show is on Comedy Central which you aren’t going to get OTA
Aggh. I did, didn’t I? Make that [del]House of Cards[/del] - [del]True Detective[/del] - [del]Mad Men[/del] … Hold on a second. … Community?
I understand your argument, but copyright, like most things, is a legal construct. It has as much protection as our representatives and common sense chooses to give it. If I show my dick to the public, as a crude example, I can and should only be allowed so much protection as to how much and to what extent it is shown and its (above average I think;) ) size is commented upon as decided by our representatives in government. If I don’t want my dick discussed or pictures redistributed, then keep it private.
The public debate on how much protection a broadcast network should get upon rebroadcast of its free signal is a good one. My position is that it should get little protection when its assumed benefit is great by wide distribution. If the station was harmed in some way by Aereo, I could see a public policy reason to restrict its use of the signal (like you mentioned if it allows skipped advertising). If it rebroadcasts what I am giving out for free without editing, I am benefiting. I don’t need extra “protection” from the legal system.
I think this is the core issue. OTA transmissions are free because advertisement costs cover the cost of broadcasting and producing the content (I assume).
The question is, by taking the same content and making it available through another means, are they taking away from any profit that the original broadcast station would have made?
This is what I don’t get. I would argue that they are actually making the advertisers more money by increasing their market share.
But the other side sticks to the basic copyright argument that the broadcasters should have the absolute right to control the distribution of their content even in the face of a benefit. I disagree with such a strict view and if I were a member of Congress I would not vote for it.
Imagine my hypothetical station, WQQD, located in Bumblebee, WV. Also imagine that I am a small business owner, say a watch repairman, who is the best damned watch repairman in the business. I pay WQQD $1k for a series of 30 second advertisements that reach 30,000 people.
A third party service redirects WQQD’s signal so that it can be seen by any person in the entire world. My business skyrockets. People from Europe are shipping me their priceless family watches for repair. I become known around the world for my expert craftsmanship in repairing watches. WQQD can now charge me (I’m guessing) $50k for the same set of advertising. We both benefit.
Except neither of us benefits when a law is in place stopping this third party service at its inception. WQQD’s greed by demanding a cut of the rebroadcast fees might stop this service from existing. People don’t get their watches fixed, I remain a small time operation, and WQQD keeps getting their shitty revenue.
Should society die on the altar of strict adherence to copyright? I think not.
How does this benefit the local car dealership, or restaurant?
The big question is, does WQOD actually get to charge more, when much of their advertising base can’t benefit from worldwide distribution?
It might not unless they were the best damn car dealership or restaurant for miles around. Then they both might get an uptick in business.
But in any event, neither these businesses or WQQD are being harmed by the wide distribution in any meaningful way. So some guy in Portugal is watching WQQD News at Eleven; maybe he likes the local news so much he will travel there one day. Maybe not. Where is the harm or lost revenue to anyone?
Why is this a debate? They are retransmitting for a profit. Yes, OTA broadcasts are free. No, that doesn’t mean you can resell them. If I taped a whole season of How I Met Your Mother and sold the tapes on eBay (I know, let’s pretend videotape still exists) would you be outraged when CBS sued?
That’s a clear violation of copyright law, and also not at all what’s going on here. That’s why there’s a debate.
Can I set up a giant antenna and redistribute a signal to 1000 subscribers? Probably not, because each stream is a new copy. Aereo isn’t doing this.
Can I set up a single antenna on a customer’s property and charge them a monthly fee for it? Yes, absolutely.
Can the customer have a DVR on said leased-antenna feed? Yes, absolutely.
Can I set up an antenna for the customer on my own property and run a cable to their house? We don’t know.
Can I set up an antenna for the customer on my own property and send them the data stream via the internet? We don’t know.
Can I set up an antenna for the customer, host a DVR service for them, and give them the ability to stream the recording via the internet? Under the Cablevision decision, the answer appears to be yes.
From a technology/legal perspective, this is uncharted territory. Efforts to draw analogies to leaflets or VHS cassettes are in vain.
How is each stream here not a new copy?
There may not be. I will try to come up with a hypothetical in a moment, but really there doesn’t need to be harm for actions to violate copyright. If I illegally download music that I would never choose to pay money for, it’s arguable that the copyright owner isn’t harmed, but I’m clearly violating copyright.
Hypothetically, WQOD could choose to offer their own streaming service. They are competing with a service that mimics their streaming service, for content they supposedly own the distribution rights to. In such a case, they would clearly be harmed by Aereo’s service. Being harmed by the service is perfectly fine, as long as the service is not violating copyright.
Because that’s not how antennas work. All they do is translate radio waves to electrical signals.
Btw, a decision came down today:
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).
Aereo is redistributing a signal. You said yourself that this is impermissible.
Welp. That sucks.
I’ve been using it on my Roku for the past month, mostly because I live in a valley on the other side of the hill from most of my local OTA broadcaster’s antennas, and I can’t be arsed to go put a giant antenna on my roof. Reception sucks, to put it mildly.
The major advantage of Aereo for me was consistent reception; it was like having an invisible 700ft antenna in my back yard. The only programming I watch on a regular basis is the evening news and the occasional sporting event, so I’ve never bothered to DVR anything.
I guess I’ll be watching less TV now. Way to lose my eyeballs, guys!
You’re going to have to define “redistributing” here, then, because when I used that word I was specifically talking about converting one signal and distributing it to many people. Aereo is not doing that. Converting a radio signal to an electrical signal and sending it to a single subscriber is not redistribution, in any meaningful sense of the word.
It’s a moot point anyway, I’m not going to second guess the supreme court. The “many antennas” loophole appears to be closed.