Aereo Attracts Support From Dish Network, EFF & More For SCOTUS Hearing
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 167
- Views 12K
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/aereo-supreme-court-primer,news-18667.html
Another day another article. This one speculates that if Aereo loses they may just pay the licensing fees and raise their prices to cover.
Another day another article. This one speculates that if Aereo loses they may just pay the licensing fees and raise their prices to cover.
All of the written briefs by the combatants and interested parties can be accessed here.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/13-461.html
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/13-461.html
Oral argument transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-461_o7jp.pdf
That was quite a read. One of the interesting thing was on page 32 lines 23-25
So only some of the antennas are under exclusive control? Are antennas actually being shared or dynamically assigned? Is the rental per viewing (i.e. I want to watch ABC you are assigned an antenna for that moment)?
No one (except some of the justices) want Aereo to be considered a cable company.
I thought it was also pretty slimy on page 33 when Aereo claims there should be no difference between a single antenna and multiple antenna:
So, if using 1 antenna should not be any different than multiple antennas how is Aereo different from a cable company?
I guess that is the job of lawyers to argue in circles.
It looks to me that the justices really want to rule that Aereo is being a cable company and should pay the retransmission fees.
I read the transcript and found it funny that the justices didn't really have any idea of what Aereo was, and I found it funny that most of the questions they asked had NOTHING to do with the one question they have to answer. That being is Aereo a public performance or not.
I did like the one lawyer when questioned about the DVR aspect said it was like using a valet to check your car... when you want it, it comes back out and is still the same car.
I also thought it was funny they the justices thought it was silly for each customer to record the same thing instead of there just being a master recording. They were like, wouldn't it make more sense to just have one master recording instead of 10,000 recordings of the same thing.
I also like how one layer hammered home that the future of cloud computing could be based on this one decision and that many companies have billions tied up in cloud computing now and that can all become worthless with this one ruling.
I did like the one lawyer when questioned about the DVR aspect said it was like using a valet to check your car... when you want it, it comes back out and is still the same car.
I also thought it was funny they the justices thought it was silly for each customer to record the same thing instead of there just being a master recording. They were like, wouldn't it make more sense to just have one master recording instead of 10,000 recordings of the same thing.
I also like how one layer hammered home that the future of cloud computing could be based on this one decision and that many companies have billions tied up in cloud computing now and that can all become worthless with this one ruling.
That is why they all have a ton of staff to research every line of what was said and figure out what laws could govern each assertion.
One cannot really expect judges to be experts at everything. That is what the research staff is for, can you tell me that you are an expert in every area of knowledge and how the law may apply to it?
Most elderly people , and lets face it the supreme court is elderly, do not know the first thing about technological advances in today's world. They are confused by it and some even shun the use of it. So I think having the S. C. rule on this issue is really ironic. They didn't even know what the Aereo company was or what it did .
Yes, and this ignorance is what I don't find funny. One of the younger members, Chief Justice Roberts, pursued the individual dinky-sized antenna argument, claiming it was just to exploit a loophole in copyright law. Well, in the first place, Aero already stated that they have a very good reason to put up thousands of dinky antennas because putting up thousands of rooftop antennas would be prohibitively expensive. And second, so what if they are exploiting a loophole? Is it the Supreme Court's job to close loopholes in the law? Many of the justices should be ashamed of the stupid, repeated questions they asked today.
I might fit in what you call elderly (I'm 70), and I can guarantee you that I know a bit about technological advances in today's world. The Supreme Court Justices are in order of age: 81, 78, 77, 75, 65, 64, 59, 59, and 53. They average 67 years old. The majority aren't even of full Social Security range. All that said, I wonder if any of them really have the staff to make any of them understand what this is all about.....
They have tons of college age interns working for them. Every law student dreams of clerking for the Supreme Court. Yes, they have all the college aged people who use technology every day clerking for them right now. Again how could one hope to have a group of judges that are experts on all subjects. Whether it is the effects of a drug on a gene if it is unique enough to be patented to cloud based computing no one can be expect to be an expert on all subjects. If they do not have expertise in house they ask universities to help.
The same thing happens in the legislative branch and presidential branch. Do you really think that everyone in congress is an expert on every subject they write laws about? This is not meant to be political but just an observation that most people are not able to be an expert in every field of science and technology. That ability was lost over 300 years ago when science expanded beyond any one person's ability to know it all.
I don't understand that argument. Isn't "cloud computer" just basically "storage on the internet"? Isn't the Aereo case basically about who can USE the content? If I record an OTA broadcast for my use, I should be able to store it in the "cloud". If for some strange reason I'm not allowed to store it in the cloud, that doesn't mean cloud computing itself is illegal.
The assertion was made that because the signals were recorded on their Cloud DVR's and had to be downloaded from the cloud to be watched meant it was a public performance.
I don't think the broadcasters made a good case for why it was considered a public performance... and that is what the sole question before the supreme court is. If Aereo wins it will based on this and this alone.
As far as one Justice saying that Aeroe was trying to work around the law and use a loophole in order to run their business is what use to be called American Ingenuity!
I don't think the broadcasters made a good case for why it was considered a public performance... and that is what the sole question before the supreme court is. If Aereo wins it will based on this and this alone.
As far as one Justice saying that Aeroe was trying to work around the law and use a loophole in order to run their business is what use to be called American Ingenuity!
I sure hope you are right. But if they had bothered to consult their interns Monday, they would have asked far fewer and far smarter questions IMHO.
I heard little evidence of these ghostly interns in the questioning reported yesterday. Who cares if Aereo is exploiting a loophole or not? That IMHO was a dumb question of law. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts was trying to help Aereo, and get them to say, "Yes, we are exploiting a loophole deliberately placed into law 50 years ago to allow the free reception of OTA broadcasts over the public airways". Did Aereo's lawyer say that? If so, I missed it.
Last edited:
Well I did say MOST elderly people, not ALL . I speak from my own family experience where NONE of them can figure out the basic DISH receiver, menus etc, after having the service for over 10 years now. I do all the installs , bill paying , technical support and repairs for my parents and aunt. They are all over 60 years of age. But yes, I doubt that any of them will have a member of staff that can explain to them how it works & even if they do , most of the court to me , seems to only listen to their own opinion anyway.
Last edited:
They say there were lots of good questions and then there was Scalia wandering around in the pasture asking what it would do to HBO. I think it's about time for him to hang up his spurs. They say his jokes are slipping also.
If you listen to lawyers who pay attention to SCOTUS, many times the questions asked have no relationship to the rulings. It seems that they frequently push both sides to explain their arguments in great detail, and explain flaws in their arguments in even greater detail. Many times a justice will berate one of the lawyers during oral arguments, but agree with their position when the rulings are released. People can try to predict how the justices will vote, but on an issue like this it will be only a guess.
