Aereo Attracts Support From Dish Network, EFF & More For SCOTUS Hearing

[Titanium]

Here is a real situation and a real question.

I live solidly within the Sacramento DMA, but due to terrain I cannot reliably receive several of the channels during a few seasons or during heavy weather and other channels do not come in at all. I have invested over $800 in a tower, rotor, combiner, amplifier. I have even mounted a IP tuner at the antennas and used my LAN to distibute to my tuners and DVR. Yet, despite all of the equipment cost and hours or install and adjusting I am unable to receive my local channels.

So I contact a company and ask them to install my antennas, IP tuner and PC with DVR. They install my equipment and provide web access for me to VPN to connect to my DVR to watch the channels legally available in my DMA. They charge me a monthly cost that covers the install, maintainance of my equipment and a small fee for a portion of their internet bill. I am then able to watch my local channels live or watch the recordings that I have made on my equipment. Would this be a legal arrangement?

 

[mike123abc]

The answer to all these questions is probably several years away. There will be various court rulings and appeals until it is completely hashed out one way or another.

 

[Peter Parker]

The answer to all these questions is probably several years away. There will be various court rulings and appeals until it is completely hashed out one way or another.

Agreed. We may know more after SCOTUS announces a decision but may very well take a bit longer.

 

[Peter Parker]

The whole matter must be sent back to the lower courts no matter what. This is about the injunction and is not in any way related to a ruling on the merits.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

I could be wrong but it looks to me like what the court is reviewing is the 2nd Circuit court decision in which aereo prevaled. The broadasters petitioned for a review and Aereo agreed. Therefore I do not see how only the injunction in the 10th district is involved.

 

[nelson61]

The lawyers are probably following this thread hunting for examples/arguments they can use in court

Sent using SatelliteGuys Android App

 

[Peter Parker]

That I doubt.

 

[mike123abc]

The lawyers are probably following this thread hunting for examples/arguments they can use in court

Sent using SatelliteGuys Android App

If there were a lot of talk about how to circumvent the geographic controls in this thread perhaps, the broadcasters could want to show there is widespread abuse. But, as far as legal arguments, I doubt they would.

 

[Peter Parker]

I suspect that the respective sides have adquate technical resoures. i really doubt that we are telling them much that they do not know. I know that I certainly have not contributed anything to either side.

 

[Peter Parker]

Here isa pretty good article calrifying which case SCOTUS is reviewing. It is the 2nd District (NY) where Aereo prevailed and NOT the 10th District Utah) where the broadcasters sought an injunction.


http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/broadcasters-petition-supreme-court-to-review-aereo-case/

 

[dangue]

Here isa pretty good article calrifying which case SCOTUS is reviewing. It is the 2nd District (NY) where Aereo prevailed and NOT the 10th District Utah) where the broadcasters sought an injunction. http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/broadcasters-petition-supreme-court-to-review-aereo-case/

Where Aero won the injunction fight. This is still not a ruling on the merits that is being appealed. The only way SCOTUS' ruling is the end of everything is if it drives Aereo to sh*t down and file for bankruptcy. Then any pending cases would likely be deemed mooted. Although I'm not positive on that since the networks might want to Perdue damages against the bankrupt Aereo.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Peter Parker]

Again let's just see where we tand. none of the articles I have read seem to support what youa re saying but you and I are not oing tho resolve this----heck SCOTUS may not resolve it.

 

[ronjohn]

Again let's just see where we tand. none of the articles I have read seem to support what youa re saying but you and I are not oing tho resolve this----heck SCOTUS may not resolve it.

In the link you provided, it states "That court rejected broadcasters’ plea to shut Aereo during a trial ...". It was not a case that was decided, it was only a preliminary injunction. There is now a circuit split .... over a preliminary injunction. Dangue is correct that no case has been decided regarding the legality of Aereo. He is also correct that SCOTUS cannot claim original jurisdiction in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...stitution#Original_and_appellate_jurisdiction. SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction for a limited number of reasons.

 

[ncted]

Where Aero won the injunction fight. This is still not a ruling on the merits that is being appealed. The only way SCOTUS' ruling is the end of everything is if it drives Aereo to sh*t down and file for bankruptcy. Then any pending cases would likely be deemed mooted. Although I'm not positive on that since the networks might want to Perdue damages against the bankrupt Aereo.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Autocorrect is not your friend.

 

[Tampa8]

Freudian slip?

 

[Tampa8]

Aereo expanding

http://bostonherald.com/business/media_marketing/2014/04/aereo_eyes_aggressive_expansion_as_case_looms

 

[mike123abc]

Aereo expanding

http://bostonherald.com/business/media_marketing/2014/04/aereo_eyes_aggressive_expansion_as_case_looms

I bet they want to be in as many markets as possible in case the injunction freezes their expansion.

 

[Foxbat]

As much as I like Aereo's concept, I find that I cannot buy their argument that they "are not broadcasting copy-written material as they are renting their users individual antennas."

Aereo is re-transmitting the copy-written material to the user, modifying the ATSC RF waveform into a bitstream that is more Internet-friendly. Do they keep the original MPEG-2 or use more efficient MPEG-4 encoding? If so, that is modifying the broadcaster's copyright program.

Also, does this transcoding occur on thousands of individual ATSC receiver feeding thousands of individual MPEG-4 encoders, each of which is networked with a unique IP address? If not, the user can't say they are in unique control of an individual piece of hardware as others could be using it at the same time.

 

[mike123abc]

As much as I like Aereo's concept, I find that I cannot buy their argument that they "are not broadcasting copy-written material as they are renting their users individual antennas."

Aereo is re-transmitting the copy-written material to the user, modifying the ATSC RF waveform into a bitstream that is more Internet-friendly. Do they keep the original MPEG-2 or use more efficient MPEG-4 encoding? If so, that is modifying the broadcaster's copyright program.

Also, does this transcoding occur on thousands of individual ATSC receiver feeding thousands of individual MPEG-4 encoders, each of which is networked with a unique IP address? If not, the user can't say they are in unique control of an individual piece of hardware as others could be using it at the same time.

I am sure every bit of the transmission chain will be completely examined during the court case.

 

[riffjim4069]

If AEREO's argument looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap...it's crap!, and the SCOTUS is in no mood to eat an AEREO crap sandwich IMO.

As much as I like Aereo's concept, I find that I cannot buy their argument that they "are not broadcasting copy-written material as they are renting their users individual antennas."

Aereo is re-transmitting the copy-written material to the user, modifying the ATSC RF waveform into a bitstream that is more Internet-friendly. Do they keep the original MPEG-2 or use more efficient MPEG-4 encoding? If so, that is modifying the broadcaster's copyright program.

Also, does this transcoding occur on thousands of individual ATSC receiver feeding thousands of individual MPEG-4 encoders, each of which is networked with a unique IP address? If not, the user can't say they are in unique control of an individual piece of hardware as others could be using it at the same time.

 

[mike123abc]

If AEREO's argument looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap...it's crap!, and the SCOTUS is in no mood to eat an AEREO crap sandwich IMO.

The standard is pretty low to deny an injunction. They will not need to get their hands dirty!