Supreme Court ruled in favor of TV Networks
- Thread starter Deadlocked
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 160
- Views 11K
What will stop the broadcasters from both going after & demanding that Aereo customers pay for copyright damage,like how the music industry went after music downloaders?
Aereo was the one retransmitting without a license. That's where the damages would come from. The whole case was about Aereo trying to shift all the responsibility to the users and instead the court ruled the opposite.
The Supreme Court is so out of touch with technology, or in the pockets of big business. Either way we are screwed.
Is posting slowing down for everyone or just me?
Is posting slowing down for everyone or just me?
Here is a statement I just received from Aereo...
Statement from Aereo CEO and Founder Chet Kanojia on United States Supreme Court Decision
Court decision denies consumers the ability to use a cloud-based antenna to access free over-the-air television, further eliminating choice and competition in the television marketplace
New York, New York (June 25, 2014) – The following statement can be attributed to Aereo CEO and Founder, Chet Kanojia:
“Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, ‘to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.’ (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?
“Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country’s fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle.”
“Justice Scalia’s dissent gets it right. He calls out the majority’s opinion as ‘built on the shakiest of foundations.’ (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that ‘The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.’ (Dissent, page 11)”
“We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world.”
###
Statement from Aereo CEO and Founder Chet Kanojia on United States Supreme Court Decision
Court decision denies consumers the ability to use a cloud-based antenna to access free over-the-air television, further eliminating choice and competition in the television marketplace
New York, New York (June 25, 2014) – The following statement can be attributed to Aereo CEO and Founder, Chet Kanojia:
“Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, ‘to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.’ (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?
“Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country’s fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle.”
“Justice Scalia’s dissent gets it right. He calls out the majority’s opinion as ‘built on the shakiest of foundations.’ (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that ‘The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.’ (Dissent, page 11)”
“We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world.”
###
They are a service provider, not unlike a cable company, after this ruling, who must pay retrans fees. The 3 dissenters only said that Aereo has found a loophole in copyright and that Congress should be the one to fix the law, not the Supreme Court.
"Aereo's system is, for all practical purposes, identical to a cable system," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. "Both use their own equipment. Both receive broadcast television programs, many of which are copyrighted. Both enable subscribers to watch those programs virtually as they are being broadcast."
What specifically does this have to do with the ruling? All the cloud stuff is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court even said as much.
"We believe that resolution of questions about cloud computing, remote storage DVRs, and other novel matters not now before us should await a case in which they are clearly presented," Breyer said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-court-tv-internet-aereo-copyright/10022797/
Here is a statement I just received from Aereo...
Statement from Aereo CEO and Founder Chet Kanojia on United States Supreme Court Decision
Court decision denies consumers the ability to use a cloud-based antenna to access free over-the-air television, further eliminating choice and competition in the television marketplace
New York, New York (June 25, 2014) – The following statement can be attributed to Aereo CEO and Founder, Chet Kanojia:
“Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, ‘to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.’ (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?
“Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country’s fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle.”
“Justice Scalia’s dissent gets it right. He calls out the majority’s opinion as ‘built on the shakiest of foundations.’ (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that ‘The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.’ (Dissent, page 11)”
“We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world.”
###
Statement from Aereo CEO and Founder Chet Kanojia on United States Supreme Court Decision
Court decision denies consumers the ability to use a cloud-based antenna to access free over-the-air television, further eliminating choice and competition in the television marketplace
New York, New York (June 25, 2014) – The following statement can be attributed to Aereo CEO and Founder, Chet Kanojia:
“Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, ‘to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.’ (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?
“Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country’s fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle.”
“Justice Scalia’s dissent gets it right. He calls out the majority’s opinion as ‘built on the shakiest of foundations.’ (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that ‘The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.’ (Dissent, page 11)”
“We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world.”
###
They conclude by saying their ruling will have little or no effect on cloud or other new tech advances. Again and again, the court displays its technical ignorance and dollars to donuts, this decision will be used to further restrict other rapidly changing technologies.
Now, what needs to happen, is to rip those legacy analog licenses from the tv broadcasters and return the frequencies to the FCC for relicenseing . They should not have it both ways, restricting the over the air reception of their signals and sitting on the legacy analog licenses.
I think this gives Broadcasters the ammo to go fight DVR's again. This ruling sorta conflicts with the sony beta max ruling.
This could actually save the consumer not cost us.
The system was clearly designed to circumvent the retransmission fee.
If that was upheld then the rest would soon follow and the networks would simply move the programing off free air and charge more, that the distributors would pass on to the consumer
The system was clearly designed to circumvent the retransmission fee.
If that was upheld then the rest would soon follow and the networks would simply move the programing off free air and charge more, that the distributors would pass on to the consumer
I don't see this at all in the ruling. The overarching issue is that Aereo is essentially like a cable provider and is responsible for retrans fees despite it's copyright workaround. Even the dissenting opinions seem to suggest this isn't right, they just didn't think that the Supreme Court should be the ones to fix the law, that Congress should.
I generally agree, note those who don't agree have to fall back on vague arguments about the court being out of touch or not understanding technology rather than citing quotes or the case itself in their arguments. I have little problem with this slowing down the future obsolescence of broadcast TV.
My comment agrees with the court that the case doesn't restrict innovation as much as it's being made out.
I don't even think that Aereo is all that innovative as it relies on dying broadcast networks. Viewers continue to abandon these networks in favor of cable networks who are producing content people actually want to watch.
This is something they do in Europe,at least in Germany & the United Kingdom,& that is that they pay a tax on how many TV's they have in their houses. Now while Germany & the U.K. can get away with it because most of their channels are state run,the way the Supreme Court & our government in general are going,what's to stop the broadcast networks,in collusion with the FCC,from demanding such a tax here if more & more people cut the cord & go OTA? Aereo was a cord cutter's dream that cut into,or potentially would cut into the TV networks' bottom line. So a TV tax. Even if you are not using your TV for OTA viewing,but only for online viewing or video games,you still pay. Not only that,but undercover workers will ask your children(be sure & tell your children not to talk to "strangers") what their favorite shows on TV are so they can catch the people who say that they don't have a TV in their house but actually do. Trust me,that does happen in Europe.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf
The decision (as posted in the other thread why do we have 2 threads on the same subject?). Essentially Aereo is doing everything a cable company does, it does not matter that they try to get around it with individual antennas, it walks like a cable company, it talks like a cable company, it is a cable company.
The decision (as posted in the other thread why do we have 2 threads on the same subject?). Essentially Aereo is doing everything a cable company does, it does not matter that they try to get around it with individual antennas, it walks like a cable company, it talks like a cable company, it is a cable company.
Yes the corrupted National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) have 100% abusive power and they're like arch nemeses. Teehar was right about the commies at NAB.
I was also disappointed like everybody, felt sorry that cord-cutters (low-to-middle class) were backstabbed by SCOTUS earlier today. The ruling was also a travesty and disgrace to America since in this economy. But Kanojia and Diller were and still true American Patriots fought for what's right in the USA, unfortunately things didn't turn out that way. SCOTUS and NAB will be laughing stocks as I predict hell breaks loose with cord-cutters picketing and protesting SCOTUS ruling. I don't want to hear "There's Nothing You Can Do" BS. Won't accept it. Now SCOTUS have taken our rights away is like Red China or Communism. I hate Communism. For God's sake this supposed to be the USA! The NAB hates innovation and prefer to live in the past!
In conclusion, update business models and give us 21st century rules. One thing to say about what SCOTUS did? Traitors!
Here's my YouTube reaction! Enjoy and comments welcome!
RIP Aereo (2012-2014)
The End of an Era!
June 25, 2014 The Day Aereo Died
also We Shall Overcome too!
So why isn't the entire NAB in prison for racketeering? I suppose for the same reason the judges aren't in a mental institution for not being able to adapt to reality.
