[live local tv] all hail Aereo ... **** just got real!

Fair enough . I see your point and the legality of it is obviously factual.

Luckily I do subscribe to DirecTV so the Aereo thing won't affect me much, but it was nice to be able to watch the Finals from my phone via Aereo and such. I'll keep the thread alive once I get an e-mail from Aereo as to what is going to happen.

 

I do have an over the air antenna, and have actually tried 3 of them, but the tall building surrounding me seem to block the signal. I live inside the loop so it is not a coverage issue. I get KPRC about half the time with it and a couple of other random channels. If I could do that I wouldn't care about Aereo.

I understand how the broadcast business works. I just think it's silly that there isn't a more sophisticated way to watch these "Free" network channels other than paying for cable or using hit or miss antennas when there are much better solutions (like Aereo).

 

A service like Aereo could exist if they wanted to pay for the rights to distribute the content.

I understand your frustration with the buildings. I've never had luck with over the air antennas. But that still doesn't give another company the right to sell you access without permissions.

 

The service seems nearly identical other than how it is delivered to you. You purchase the DVR, you purchase the antenna, and external hard drive instead of all of this being taken care of for you. Then you pay an annual fee to view TV on your tablets/PC on the go.

My guess is that their Premium service would be deemed illegal based on the Aereo ruling but I doubt much action is taken to Simple.tv. They aren't as big of a threat financially because they don't solve the problem people like DieHard Rocket have with an antenna at home.

I think the DVR box is safe though.

 

LOL @ the angel investors for this company.

 

justtxyank,

Would you think it's illegal for a company to sell an antenna+slingbox+roku package for a flat rate and storing all of these items at their headquarters for convenience?

 

I don't know quite follow the logistics of what you are proposing, but yes, it sounds like you are proposing an end run around distribution rights.

Edit: That's also not what this company did, though they tried to make the flimsy argument that they have enough antenna to theoretically argue that have one for each subscriber. The court rejected that argument as an end run like I just said. They aren't actually selling customers the antenna. They are putting up antennas in various places and then selling the right to access the content picked up by those antenna, no matter how they argue they are packaging it. That they are giving it to you over the internet instead of through a cable wire doesn't change the fact that are violating the law.

 

Just got this e-mail.

 

The argument is flawed.

1) Over the air broadcasts are NOT just available to people who pay for Cable. They are available to anyone who can access the over the air signal

2) Someone else selling you THEIR access to the over the air signal is redistribution plain and simple.

He is arguing about your "right" to free over the air signals being violated, but they aren't trying to give you free over the air signals. They are charging you for free over the air signals, they just don't want to honor the copyright laws so they can charge you less than a cable company.

His basic argument is anyone should be able to sell you content from television without paying the people who produce the content. That is ridiculous.

 

Hmm
well another way to look at it .. is FREE over the air signal broadcasting should be available to everyone. .but some people live in between buildings or where the antenna's arnt strong enough to deliver a signal. What Aereo was doing was selling you service to the antenna and not the content.

 

I agree.

Which makes me wonder.. as a thought experiment: what if you went to the trouble to erect a very large and very powerful antenna, which would allow you to receive ota broadcasts from your general region, but with superb clarity and quality.

The antenna was expensive, and some of your neighbors, seeing the quality of signal you receive, ask if they can run a cable from their houses, you know, maybe three or four houses away, and connect into your antenna. They offer to pay you for the trouble, and to help offset some of the costs of the antenna.

It's a silly premise I know, but the question I have is, would this be considered illegal? To me, it doesn't seem so, as you are merely paying for access to an antenna.

 

Right, I understand that it was found to be illegal.

I'm actually curious what part of their service is at fault. In that situation, this fictitious company would not be selling any service, they would be selling 3 separate hardware devices (permanently housed on their property). That is not what Aereo was doing but it would deliver the same product to consumers.

This scenario is exactly what was found to be illegal. You can't charge for content you didn't create without consent.

 

They were distributing content to you that you can't access otherwise, or in other words, redistribution. Which is perfectly legal as long as you pay the copyright holder.

If a singer does a concert, anyone who can hear the concert gets to listen, even if they didn't pay. (Let's say you work in the buildings behind the venue or something.) If don't live close enough to hear so I pay you for access to a live recording of the event, you are now breaking copyright laws. This isn't a perfect analogy, but hopefully it makes sense.

 

If I understand the UK correctly, their satellite providers are required to provide OTA channels free. In correlation to the US, that would require Dish Network and DirecTV to provide local channels free to anyone.

With technology overlapping leaps and bounds, US laws are really preventing the rural areas from getting services that can be aquired in urban areas.

 

If my building can't get OTA signal but a building 2 blocks away can, is it then illegal for me to put an antenna on their building, run a long ass coax cable to my house, and pay them for using their roof top? Isn't Aero basically doing the same thing, with the public Internet acting as the long ass coax cable?

 

people with Aereo, has your service been cut off yet?

 

Clearly, an argument can be made that this is the case.

I just hope people remember who wrote the dissent when it comes time to determine who had the best interests of the people at heart, and who had the best interests of the cable companies at heart.

 

No it hasn't

 

I may be misreading the various articles, but it seems the issue is they're charging for directly distributing the content online for you without the consent of the content owner.

If they were renting you a physical DVR with a specially designed antenna, that would be legal. Putting either in the cloud and charging you for access isn't. Hosting an antenna that repeats someone elses signal without their consent isn't either.

LA Times lays it out pretty well: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80498244/.

 

Myth-Busting The Aereo Decision: No The Supreme Court Didn't Kill It... Nor Did They Kill Dropbox

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrog...ourt-didnt-kill-it-nor-did-they-kill-dropbox/