Broadcasters Denied Injunction Against Aereo in Massachusetts

[dfergie]

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton has denied an injunction request made by Hearst Station, owner of ABC affiliate WCVB-TV.

hollywoodreporter.com

 

[TheKrell]

And now they have taken their case to the Supreme Court.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/11/broadcasters-aereo-supreme-court/

 

[mike123abc]

I doubt the Supreme Court will do anything until there is an actual trial in a lower court and it is appealed...

 

[Tampa8]

Agreed. They won't hear it.

 

[mike123abc]

The whole thought that the broadcasters think they should get special treatment and get their case in front of the Supreme Court early irks me. They are not going to go broke or probably even notice any lost income before the trial. That is why courts have refused to grant an injunction. The courts are smart enough to see that it is currently only a minor loss of income and it will not grow big enough to cause harm before the trial.

 

[DustoMan]

More than likely it's going to increase the number of people seeing their ads and add to their ratings. Just because they aren't getting a retransmission fee which are dubious to begin with are nothing to throw a temper tantrum over.

 

[R0ss]

I never knew that broadcasters received retransmission fees until I joined Satellite Guys. I agree the fact that they do get these fees is dubious at best...the networks reach many more viewers thanks to pay TV, they should be happy since it should bring in more advertising..oh well. I still have my subscription to Aero TV, it is a good back up to the antenna.


Sent via Tapatalk