Aereo Slapped With 6-State Injunction By Federal Judge - 14 day Repreive - denied

[riffjim4069]

Which law?

A federal judge said AEREO violated copyright law, which is why he pulled the plug. In order to be granted an injunction, there must be overwhelming evidence (in this case as presented by broadcasters) the plaintiff will win the case on its merit and that they will suffer irreversible damages should an injunction not be granted. As you will recall, VOOM not granted an injunction barring Dish Network from pulling the plug after illegally terminating their affiliation agreement (because the injunction is a very high-hurdle) but VOOM won convincingly when the matter went to trial. We can only assume there was clear, compelling and convincing evidence that AEREO violated copyright law and was going to lose this case, almost beyond question. Wouldn't you think?

Just to reiterae, AEREO violated copyright law in a clear and convincing manner. You're arguing like they didn't violate the law, which is not the case...unless the judge's decision is later overturned by an appellate court.

 

[riffjim4069]

...and at least a part of aereo's business case, and legality, they don't. Unless you have 100% stable coverage of an entire DMA, aereo has a case.

Assuming a waiver has been granted by the broadcaster(s).

 

[dangue]

A federal judge said AEREO violated copyright law, which is why he pulled the plug. In order to be granted an injunction, there must be overwhelming evidence (in this case as presented by broadcasters) the plaintiff will win the case on its merit and that they will suffer irreversible damages should an injunction not be granted. As you will recall, VOOM not granted an injunction barring Dish Network from pulling the plug after illegally terminating their affiliation agreement (because the injunction is a very high-hurdle) but VOOM won convincingly when the matter went to trial. We can only assume there was clear, compelling and convincing evidence that AEREO violated copyright law and was going to lose this case, almost beyond question. Wouldn't you think? Just to reiterae, AEREO violated copyright law in a clear and convincing manner. You're arguing like they didn't violate the law, which is not the case...unless the judge's decision is later overturned by an appellate court.

First of all, the case has not gone to trial, so no determination of legality or illegality has been made. Second, in other instances injunctions have not been given, which indicates that the case is not as clear as you make it out to be.

 

[Tampa8]

No different then a friend of mine sending me a slingbox to hook up to my antenna so he can watch the patriot games since in his area he only sees the Redskins games.

That has been a discussion since Slingbox was introduced. I'm not certain that is legal. Would that be considered you giving public broadcast of an NFL program? Probably not an issue for regular OTA network programming, but like MLB they don't allow public viewing without permission or paying for it. Someone outside your home without you present is viewing it and that someone is not you, could that be public use?

 

[Tampa8]

First of all, the case has not gone to trial, so no determination of legality or illegality has been made. Second, in other instances injunctions have not been given, which indicates that the case is not as clear as you make it out to be.

Agreed. It is nowhere near clear, just as I posted recently it is nowhere near a slam dunk legal either. This is new technology and that always becomes a problem for antiquated FCC/Broadcast laws.

 

[ronjohn]

Just to reiterae, AEREO violated copyright law in a clear and convincing manner.

So you are ignoring the other judge who decided that it is not clear that the broadcasters will win the case?

No decision about the merits of the case were made in the Boston decision or the Utah decision. It is still early to make definitive statements about how the actual lawsuits will be decided. I don't think either judge(Boston or Utah) will have much say in the matter as the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case before a lower court decision, or an appeals court decision has been made. That is a very rare circumstance.

As for making over the top definitive statements, I don't think it really achieves very much. Your language seems to mirror the propaganda of the broadcasters. Someone else could make the statement that the Boston injunction being denied proves that Aereo is operating legally. The case still has not even been heard before any court.

So to my original question, which section of which law is Aereo violating? I have not seen in any of the broadcaster statements a good description of that.

 

[jayn_j]

But we are talking about situations where people who live within the station's DMA are using the Aereo technology to receive OTA broadcasts of that station's signal.

Now we are talking lawyers here, so logic goes out the window, but it seems to me that a case could be made that when a broadcast station has made a claim that they own my viewing, they then have some responsibility to ensure that I can reasonably receive their broadcast no matter where I live in the DMA.

 

[riffjim4069]

First of all, the case has not gone to trial, so no determination of legality or illegality has been made. Second, in other instances injunctions have not been given, which indicates that the case is not as clear as you make it out to be.

It should be interesting how the courts adjudicate these inconsistencies. We shall see...

 

[riffjim4069]

Lol! The fact is most good lawyers make well-written, logic-based arguments....the problem is the laws are poorly conceived, not backed by case law or, in the case of communications law, do not anticipate changes in technology which creates loopholes. That's my two cents from the cheap-seats.

But we are talking about situations where people who live within the station's DMA are using the Aereo technology to receive OTA broadcasts of that station's signal.

Now we are talking lawyers here, so logic goes out the window, but it seems to me that a case could be made that when a broadcast station has made a claim that they own my viewing, they then have some responsibility to ensure that I can reasonably receive their broadcast no matter where I live in the DMA.

 

[riffjim4069]

Just so everyone knows how this judge ruled in his decision...

Source

In a 26-page ruling released Wednesday, Kimball argued that Aereo violates The Copyright Act of 1976 because it is beaming TV signals to paid subscribers without paying royalties to the broadcasters, which in this case is the local television stations and their parent companies.

"This court concludes that Aereo is engaging in copyright infringement of Plaintiffs’ programs," the judge wrote in the ruling. "Despite its attempt to design a device or process outside the scope of the 1976 Copyright Act, Aereo’s device or process transmits Plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs to the public."

 

[ronjohn]

"Despite its attempt to design a device or process outside the scope of the 1976 Copyright Act, Aereo’s device or process transmits Plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs to the public."[/I]

This is Aereo's core argument. One which Comcast is actually supporting them on. Their claim is that they do not broadcast to the public, only to a single individual. The Supreme Court held in the Comcast remote DVR case that the signal connecting through the internet did not of itself constitute a broadcast if only one subscriber could access the content.

 

[ronjohn]

After thinking about the wording of the judge's statement, it sounds like he is saying "Even though you didn't violate the technical aspects of the law, you are still violating the law"

 

[Tampa8]

"Despite its attempt to design a device or process outside the scope of the 1976 Copyright Act, Aereo’s device or process transmits Plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs to the public."

So, can someone rent an antenna, and watch the same programming designed for him to watch for free. (In his DMA)

If that is going to be the litmus test, I think Aereo has a chance. The Court would have to find I can not use an antenna farm at land on the other side of Town, send the signal over the internet from there, sent to myself, and pay the owner for use of his land/antenna, and that antenna is only used for my use.

As I said, they searched for a Judge or Court they felt they had a better chance of winning with. I'm not sure this as devastating as it first appears.

 

[Teehar]

The way I see it,Aereo is doing the networks a favor,by expanding the possible viewership.There are a lot of people that can't get an adequate signal via a rooftop antenna.But,if the networks had their way,we'd also be paying for ota signals,that's one reason they are fighting this so hard.They aren't getting paid so it must be stopped.Why don't they band together and offer something similar to Aereo?

 

[tomcrown1]

The way I see it,Aereo is doing the networks a favor,by expanding the possible viewership.There are a lot of people that can't get an adequate signal via a rooftop antenna.But,if the networks had their way,we'd also be paying for ota signals,that's one reason they are fighting this so hard.They aren't getting paid so it must be stopped.Why don't they band together and offer something similar to Aereo?

I do not understand how Aereo streams the channels. If it over carrier like Verizon then Aereo is in trouble. This is what Verizon is doing to Netflix. http://www.bidnessetc.com/21061-netflix-verizon-tussle-leads-to-slower-streaming/

 

[Peter Parker]

I guess one question I would like answered is whether each dime sized antenna is really independent or whether the fact that they are in a large array helps.

 

[riffjim4069]

[/I]So, can someone rent an antenna, and watch the same programming designed for him to watch for free. (In his DMA)

If that is going to be the litmus test, I think Aereo has a chance. The Court would have to find I can not use an antenna farm at land on the other side of Town, send the signal over the internet from there, sent to myself, and pay the owner for use of his land/antenna, and that antenna is only used for my use.

As I said, they searched for a Judge or Court they felt they had a better chance of winning with. I'm not sure this as devastating as it first appears.

The biggest problem with AEREO is that they're a subscription based Pay TV service and the copyright holders aren't getting squat in royalties/fees. Unlike Slingbox and/or Cable/Telco/DBS placeshifting services, which are personal use devices or the subscriber is paying real $$$ to view the content, AEREO is using the broadcaster's programming under the guise of 'renting an antenna' for their gain. This doesn't seem fair or legal.

The way I see it,Aereo is doing the networks a favor,by expanding the possible viewership.There are a lot of people that can't get an adequate signal via a rooftop antenna.But,if the networks had their way,we'd also be paying for ota signals,that's one reason they are fighting this so hard.They aren't getting paid so it must be stopped.Why don't they band together and offer something similar to Aereo?

Okay, by this standard (increased viewship and ratings in which to base selling more expensive advertising by the broadcasters) would ESPN object to my creating a virtual living room and then distributing ESPN programming to all my 'guests' on backside private wireless and VPN networks so my guests (friends, neighbors and perhaps customers) can watch ESPN without having to pay for the programming...even if I weren't charging them one penny for a virtual seat on my sofa? I believe this is a crime known as cable theft.

The net effect is someone getting something (i.e., copyrighted programming) without paying for it. In this case, the law permits citizens to erecting an OTA antenna, on their own property, for their own personal use. This virtual antenna nonsense is just that...nonsense IMO.

Finally, I actually have no problem with AEREO doing what they're doing...just as long as the same standard---based in law---applies to ESPN, TNT, TBS, and all the other cable favorites, which isn't going to happen without laws, such as the Cable and Telecommunications Act, being changed. As it stand now, it's a theft of intellectual property. I'm not a lawyer, but what AEREO is doing does not pass the sniff test.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[Teehar]

Okay, by this standard (increased viewship and ratings in which to base selling more expensive advertising by the broadcasters) would ESPN object to my creating a virtual living room and then distributing ESPN programming to all my 'guests' on backside private wireless and VPN networks so my guests (friends, neighbors and perhaps customers) can watch ESPN without having to pay for the programming...even if I weren't charging them one penny for a virtual seat on my sofa? I believe this is a crime known as cable theft.

ESPN is a paid for cable channel.Local ota channels are supposed to be free.Look at it this way,say I live within a certain dma,yet I am unable to receive an adequate signal to view the local channels.No cable,lets even say no los for sat,what should I do,go without local channels,or pay someone like Aereo to provide them for me.I would certainly believe the broadcasters would prefer to have more eyeballs as opposed to fewer.

 

[mike123abc]

It is hard to predict which way the Supreme Court will rule. I hope that they side with Aereo. Although each of the parts has essentially been ruled legal by the Supreme Court, it is still not clear that all the parts put together by a company would still be legal.

 

[ronjohn]

The biggest problem with AEREO is that they're a subscription based Pay TV service and the copyright holders aren't getting squat in royalties/fees. Unlike Slingbox and/or Cable/Telco/DBS placeshifting services, which are personal use devices or the subscriber is paying real $$$ to view the content, AEREO is using the broadcaster's programming under the guise of 'renting an antenna' for their gain. This doesn't seem fair or legal.

It seems to me that the question for the courts is: Is Aereo renting antennas or are they collecting and broadcasting the broadcast channels.

You again used the same type language as the statements from the broadcasters. If Aereo is operating simply "under the guise of 'renting an antenna'" then they are indeed violating copyright law. If Aereo is actually renting individual antennas, then the law is not settled. Every individual aspect of what they are doing has been ruled legal, but they are the first to combine the individual aspects in such a way.

By the way, in the 1992 Copyright Renewal, the drafting committee made the following statement:

"n cases where civil liability is unclear – whether because the law is unsettled, or because a legitimate business dispute exists – the Committee does not intend to establish criminal liability”

That would disprove the statement that Aereo is committing thievery. If a court rules that what they are doing is illegal and they continue, then they would be breaking criminal law. If what they are doing is not settled by actual case decisions, then they cannot be breaking criminal law.