[opendtv] Re: Huff Post: Three Questions About the Aereo Supreme Court Case That Desperately Need Answers
- From: Dale Kelly <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:09:54 -0700
BS Bert!
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 29, 2014, at 6:10 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Answers to the three questions that "desperately" need answers:
>
> 1. Who controls what. The user controls the streaming as well as the PVR
> feature, just like always. Recording is an orthogonal topic, similar in-cloud
> PVR service has already been cleared by the courts, so end of story.
> Broadcasters have not been able to count on by-appointment viewing for 30
> years now. Time to get over it.
>
> 2. Private vs public. Tell me what answer you want to hear for the OTA
> broadcast, and I'll repeat those same words for Aereo. Building antenna
> systems, or rural CATV systems that only carry OTA channels, merely assist in
> the distribution of a legitimate signal, in a legitimate geo location. The
> signal was ALWAYS intended for distribution to multiple households and
> appliances. There's no need to obsess over this. Do we call this public or
> private?
>
> 3. Shouldn't Aereo pay royalties. If you have an antenna guy install an
> antenna where you live, does he need to pay royalties? I don't think so! It's
> important to not mix apples and oranges. Aereo ONLY streams OTA channels
> (perhaps one exception or two that no one really worries about), and Aereo
> ONLY streams in the market of those OTA channels. It assists ATSC in its
> mission in life.
>
> Bert
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elyssa-pachico/three-questions-about-the-aereo_b_5209941.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media
>
> Elyssa Pachico
> Three Questions About the Aereo Supreme Court Case That Desperately Need
> Answers
> Posted: 04/29/2014 10:26 am EDT Updated: 04/29/2014 10:59 am EDT
>
> So much trouble over a bunch of nickel-sized antennas. The fight between the
> TV networks and Aereo -- a start-up which allows subscribers to "rent" tiny
> antennas based in a warehouse, then stream broadcast programming to their
> laptop or phone -- has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, where each side
> presented their arguments on April 22. Broadcasters say that Aereo is
> stealing their content. Aereo argues that their business model is perfectly
> legitimate, and that by cracking down on Aereo, broadcasters are putting the
> entire future of cloud computing at risk.
>
> It's just the latest twist in a much longer saga, in which broadcast
> companies have repeatedly resisted technological innovations. Betamax,
> anyone? Or what about the lawsuit that broadcasters unsuccessfully pursued
> against Cablevison's RS-DVRs, a device that lets people record and keep
> broadcast programming in cloud storage?
>
> Aereo has faced legal challenges practically since it was established in New
> York two years ago. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by
> June, and the fight is unlikely to be resolved unless that decision addresses
> a couple of the following points:
>
> 1. Who Controls What?
>
> Aereo has presented their business model as a way of giving viewers exactly
> what they want: greater control over what they want to watch. Instead of
> setting up 35-inch antennas that pick up a huge range of frequencies, Aereo
> rents miniscule antennas only capable of tuning in to one at a time.
>
> This fits into the larger media revolution that broadcasters are struggling
> to contend with. This is no longer a world in which traditional media
> produces and then distributes all creative content -- it's a world in which
> viewers want television on their own terms and their own timetable.
>
> The broadcast networks recognize that television viewing habits are changing
> -- hence, the greater amount of content that can be streamed online via
> subscription services like Hulu. Arguably, the TV networks are primarily
> concerned over who gets to control the streaming of their content: the
> networks themselves, via authorized Internet viewing sites, or those whom
> they view as "subverting" this model -- including brash start-ups like Aereo.
>
> If broadcasters don't have control of their programming ahead of independent
> video streaming companies like Aereo, this would cut their revenue to an
> unacceptable degree, the TV networks have argued. And should the broadcast
> networks suffer, the public will end up suffering even more, as broadcasters
> like to say the public is the "ultimate beneficiary" of their programming.
>
> In many ways, that's what the Aereo Supreme Court case boils down to: who
> gets to control the future model of how viewers watch TV?
>
> 2. What's a "Private" Versus "Public" Performance Anyway?
>
> These are terms that were supposed to have been defined under the 1976
> Copyright Act. The airing of a TV show is considered a "public" performance
> -- that's why cable and satellite companies need to pay broadcasters millions
> for the right to show their programming. Watching a DVD at home is a
> "private" performance, and doesn't require paying a fee to those who own the
> copyrighted material.
>
> The Copyright Act was written at a time when the idea of something like Aereo
> was unfathomable. So it's no small wonder that the courts have struggled to
> define what kind of online, audiovisual content counts as a "public
> performance" these days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
