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.
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)))
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”).
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.
That wasn’t ever a possibility. Aereo doesn’t allow you to receive transmissions from other cities.
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."
Okay fine. There’s a provision under the cable TV statute that allows you to do that. Comply with those provisions.
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:
[
And I found [a slightly better article about Scalia’s opinion from Business Insider:
](Why Justice Scalia Dissented on Aereo - Business Insider)
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.
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
filed for Chapter 11.
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.
You have just described community access television or CATV, which is regulated as a cable service by the Cable Act.
…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.
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.