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

[hancox]

RiffJim - here's a litmus test for you.

Let's say you live in a condo complex. As they have one higher-elevation building, they "rent" out for usage of a community OTA antenna. Under the guise of this ruling, i would think this would be illegal. Does this make sense to you?

 

[dfergie]

Aereo Wins Short Reprieve From Six-State Injunction

Less than a week after being slapped with a 6-state injunction, the Barry Diller-backed streaming service today has won a 14-day reprieve – a move that will not please broadcasters who thought they’d scored their biggest legal win yet over Aereo.

deadline.com

 

[Tampa8]

The Plot thickens.

 

[mike123abc]

This is probably going to be like the TiVo vs Dish case. It could go on for many years if the Supreme Court decided to not have a preliminary injunction until a trial. It will then again be appealed all the way back up to the Supreme Count...

 

[ronjohn]

This is probably going to be like the TiVo vs Dish case. It could go on for many years if the Supreme Court decided to not have a preliminary injunction until a trial. It will then again be appealed all the way back up to the Supreme Count...

The Supreme Court has actually agreed to hear the case before a lower court decision has been made. A very rare occurrence. Of course they could hear the case and only make a limited decision that doesn't answer the majority of the case.

 

[dangue]

The Supreme Court has actually agreed to hear the case before a lower court decision has been made. A very rare occurrence. Of course they could hear the case and only make a limited decision that doesn't answer the majority of the case.

The Supreme Court can't rule on anything other than the injunction.

 

[Peter Parker]

No the court has agreed to hear the case not just to review an injunction.

 

[dangue]

No the court has agreed to hear the case not just to review an injunction.

That's flat out wrong. The Court doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear this case in the first instance (original jurisdiction). This is strictly about the pre-trial injunctive relief sought by broadcasters and already decided on by lower courts. Once this is ruled on and however the Court rules on the injunction, the case will go back to federal court for a full trial on the merits.

See here: www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/about-supreme-court.aspx

The Court's Jurisdiction
Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

 

[Peter Parker]

I must be rwrong. I thought that the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal of a decision r reached by a lower court.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-bid-to-stop.html

 

[riffjim4069]

The Plot thickens.

It does...although, unlike Tivo vs. Dish, I believe this case will be fast-tracked.

 

[dfergie]

And Aereo will win hopefully and the networks will realize they are not all powerful anymore... (and put in their place)

 

[mike123abc]

The Supreme Court will probably not say much beyond granting/denying the preliminary injunction. The court has a history of wanting things well hashed out in courts below before they dive in. Who could blame them, it is much better to have all the other courts make all the arguments and do all the research, and have all the appeals done.

If they deny the injunction I do not expect more than a simple statement that the networks will not be irreparably harmed during the trial. On the other hand if they allow the injunction they will essentially be killing Aereo, how does a lower court rule when the SC already said they though AEREO did not have a good chance?

 

[riffjim4069]

And Aereo will win hopefully and the networks will realize they are not all powerful anymore... (and put in their place)

If that happens, the broadcast towers get shutdown and we're soon paying $5-$10 monthly just to watch CBS. Bye-bye free OTA TV.

 

[dfergie]

We already are paying that if we have Satellite ...

 

[Teehar]

We already are paying that if we have Satellite ...

or cable in a lot of cases.

 

[Neutron]

Where we live we can get the stations via antenna except for the local ABC because their tower is south of Dallas and from where we're at we're looking at about 30 miles not counting buildings and other things that would block the signal. We have and use Aereo because of this and because we're tired of paying out the wazoo for TV.

If the broadcasters find a way to stop Aereo and even worse start charging for OTA this family will find other means of entertainment.

 

[jayn_j]

or cable in a lot of cases.

Very true. Cable companies in many areas, including here, are dumping their lifeline broadcast only packages because of the retransmission fees. Back in the day when these systems were regulated, this sort of package to make OTA signals available in marginal reception areas was a requirement for maintaining the monopoly. Since the industry was deregulated, it is just a constant effort to wring more money out of the consumer, and in many cases they have little choice.

 

[ronjohn]

The Supreme Court will probably not say much beyond granting/denying the preliminary injunction. The court has a history of wanting things well hashed out in courts below before they dive in. Who could blame them, it is much better to have all the other courts make all the arguments and do all the research, and have all the appeals done.

If they deny the injunction I do not expect more than a simple statement that the networks will not be irreparably harmed during the trial. On the other hand if they allow the injunction they will essentially be killing Aereo, how does a lower court rule when the SC already said they though AEREO did not have a good chance?

I think they will rule on more than just the injunction. In the least, they will provide more guidance to the Comcast DVR decision. There are open cases in lower courts regarding Aereo, and it is extremely rare that the Supreme Court takes any aspect of a case while there is still an open case at a lower level. Both Aereo and the networks want a final resolution to the case quickly, and the Court has already broken the established protocol.

I don't understand why the Court would agree to hear the case to rule only on the injunction. I can't see any way that with the number of subscribers to Aereo that the networks will be harmed irreparably. If Aereo wins, more cable companies and possibly both sat companies will begin using similar technology. Until that time, Aereo will not kill the broadcasters, and any harm could be repaired with compensation.

 

[dangue]

I think they will rule on more than just the injunction. In the least, they will provide more guidance to the Comcast DVR decision. There are open cases in lower courts regarding Aereo, and it is extremely rare that the Supreme Court takes any aspect of a case while there is still an open case at a lower level. Both Aereo and the networks want a final resolution to the case quickly, and the Court has already broken the established protocol. I don't understand why the Court would agree to hear the case to rule only on the injunction. I can't see any way that with the number of subscribers to Aereo that the networks will be harmed irreparably. If Aereo wins, more cable companies and possibly both sat companies will begin using similar technology. Until that time, Aereo will not kill the broadcasters, and any harm could be repaired with compensation.

They can't rule on anything other than the injunction. They don't have the jurisdiction. Any comments made related to the injunction related to the merits wouldn't even be binding because the facts of the case have not been tried in a lower court and the merits of the case are not before the Court on this appeal. The granting or not of an injunction can give us a sense of how the court believes the case will end up, but cases can end up completely different than the initial injunction ruling would lead you to believe.

The Court did not break with established protocol in taking this appeal. It is rare, but it has happened before and is well within their jurisdiction.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[ronjohn]

They can't rule on anything other than the injunction. They don't have the jurisdiction. Any comments made related to the injunction related to the merits wouldn't even be binding because the facts of the case have not been tried in a lower court and the merits of the case are not before the Court on this appeal. The granting or not of an injunction can give us a sense of how the court believes the case will end up, but cases can end up completely different than the initial injunction ruling would lead you to believe.

It is true that the Supreme Court cannot issue a binding ruling on the merits of the case. However, if they included some guidance in their decision and the lower court ignored the guidance, it would almost certainly be acted upon on appeal. If they offer guidance and the lower courts abide by that guidance, then the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear an appeal.

Aside from the rarity of conducting a hearing while there is still a lower case, I find it odd that they are hearing this one because: The potential extra harm is easily quantified(The amount that Aereo is currently not paying to the broadcaster times the amount of time for the trial), and Aereo currently in and of itself is not a real threat to the broadcasters. The justices either believe that the broadcasters will be out of business by the end of the trial, or they want to send a message to the lower courts. I don't believe that Aereo has enough subscribers to be a real threat to the broadcasters. I don't believe that the justices want to bully the lower courts. I don't understand why they are involved at this point at all.