Quantcast

Want To See Aereo Survive? This Senate Bill Does Too

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion' started by CatfishRivers, Nov 12, 2013.

  1. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Want to see Aereo survive? This senate bill does too | Internet & Media - CNET News (click for full article)

    Summary: If courts decide the streamer of over-the-air TV isn't breaching copyright, proposed legislation would keep hefty content fees out of Aereo's costs. It's one facet of a bill Sen. Jay Rockefeller says will make online video more competitive.


    by Joan E. Solsman November 12, 2013 9:54 AM PST


    -- West Virginia Democrat Sen. Jay Rockefeller plans to introduce a bill Tuesday he said will foster online video, decrease consumer costs, and increase video content choice and quality.

    It will also help Aereo to survive if the company, which streams over-the-air local broadcasts to subscribers, fends off copyright allegations in court.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2013
  2. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I guess some people think this business is a good idea, I sure don't. If it is going to be alright for these retransmission over the internet businesses to have free access to OTA programming to sell for a profit, I don't see that as a good thing. I don't think the bill will ever pass if the courts find it is a legal business, which I don't think is the case either. As things stand now, it is going to be extremely difficult for the networks to continue to provide free OTA TV and this sure won't help.
     
  3. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    As I see it, users wouldn't be paying for the TV service, but for the mean of access. Although OTA is free, I still have to buy an antenna. What's the difference in purchasing a HDTV w/built in tuner or paying for the service of what amounts to basically the same thing. The network channels remain free. Aereo simply provides the means. Networks want to restrict how their content is viewed. If it were being broadcast from a device that stripped all commercials from the feed then that would qualify as a copyright infringement.

    Besides, TV is not really free. We pay for the programming w/annoying and sometime repetitive commercials that may soon average longer than the actual program we are watching.

    Aereo is an antenna for the internet...

    Carl
     
  4. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I suspect the courts will find that Aereo will need to reach agreements with the parties providing the content to be able to sell it. Even radio stations can't broadcast music without paying for the rights. Your comment it isn't selling the content but selling access to the content is rather silly, even if that is the argument Aereo is using since the the content is obviously what the users are paying for. If the content was me singing opera nobody would buy access to that because nobody would buy the content. A free homemade antenna can access OTA content, nobody has to buy an antenna but for convenience most of us using OTA do.

    You can also choose to pay DirecTV or Dish Network or the local cable company for local channels, they have obtained the rights to offer the content. I am certainly not an attorney but I sure don't see Aereo prevailing in this matter. The little antennas Aereo uses are just a red herring, trying to make it appear the company is complying with the law. Aereo is in business to make a profit and freeloading by riding on the shoulders of TV stations with tens of millions invested is not likely going to fly over the long run is how I see it.
     
  5. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    Well... I can only agree to disagree. But I think the outcome will be interesting.
     
  6. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, we are talking about the public airwaves, and if we wanted to require that only non-copyright material could be broadcast over our airwaves, we could do so, but that may prove not to be in our best interest. There are always tradeoffs to be made. Because we have those tradeoffs, stupid situations result.
     
  7. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    MLB and NFL endorse legal battle against Aereo, threaten to limit sports broadcasts (click for full article)

    by Jon Fingas - Nov. 18, 2013

    -- It's not just major broadcasters who are willing to take their fight against Aereo to the Supreme Court. The MLB and the NFL have jointly filed an amicus brief supporting the existing court case, arguing that the streaming TV service jeopardizes their licensing deals.

    Aereo's ability to offer sports programming at no extra cost undermines the point of exclusive (and very lucrative) broadcasting arrangements, according to the brief. The leagues are prepared to back up their words with deeds -- they claim that they'll have to move their games to cable and satellite channels if Aereo wins.

    There's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will sympathize with this supposed plight, but it's clearer than ever that Aereo faces stiff opposition from the broadcasting industry's status quo.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  8. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    Lol!

    Yeah, right. Move to a service where thousands are fleeing in ever increasing numbers. And Satellite where the sports channels are so convoluted ya couldn't find that NFL game in time for Kickoff. And alienate millions of fans?

    Please Judges, call their bluff...
     
  9. pmcd

    pmcd Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    When cable first came out the idea was to replace a family's antenna with a more convenient and taller antenna for a modest price. The cable companies were not paying the broadcasters one cent for doing this in many countries ( in Canada, for example, it is only recently that the cable companies lost a court case and were forced to pay the networks for transmitting their signals). They had been refusing to do this for 40+ years. Aereo is doing exactly what the cable companies first did. In fact, as I recall, initially the cable people promised fewer ads and of course a better picture. We did get better pictures and more stations but at a price that has gotten out of hand.

    It would be a real shame if Aereo were to not prevail in this battle. Now the history in the US with cable may be different. Perhaps they did pay the networks for transmitting their stations.

    OTA in the 50's and 60's exactly the same as internet today.

    The thing I can't recall is who paid to lay down cable way back. Unfortunately the cable companies are often the internet access point.

    Now is the time to finally get cable out of the way. They are a major reason why TV is stuck in the 60's.

    Philip
     
  10. pmcd

    pmcd Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The only reason it might be difficult is they have gotten used to a monopoly. In Canada the cable companies never paid a cent to the OTA networks. They did for specialty channels of course. They in fact argued in court that the networks were already being paid through advertising and refused to pay. This went on for ages and they finally lost recently and had to start paying the networks and of course passed it on to the consumer.

    Now I can see specialty channels being a different situation. What's really driving the agenda is sports: football, boxing, baseball, UFC , etc ... three of which should be banned in any case given that they are suicidal activities. Talk about something more dangerous than smoking. The evidence if overwhelming regarding head injuries with football, boxing and I assume UFC. I realize this is not a popular opinion but not a cent of public money should go to any of those sports. NHL hockey probably is in the same boat but I am not sure about it.

    Philip
     
  11. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    That's a thought...

    Ban sports because they are dangerous? No more skiing (might hit a tree), racing (uh, uh, might crash), water polo (nah, might drown) Baseball (Guy got hit w/the ball in the head), etc. The very nature of sports is risk. But all this is besides the point. No sport can survive long w/out spectators. The more the better. This is why Pay Per View was so popular until the prices reach unaffordable levels for the average joe. Then there was the sports bar craze. All different means of accessing sports in an affordable way. Would anyone deny the bar owner the right to a cover charge for a Pay Per View event. Oh wait, its copyrighted material! Ya can't do that. Lol!

    Now there's Aereo...

    No dfference in my opinion.
     
  12. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yep...

    "The price for watching a pay-per-view bout at home might be $50, while businesses typically pay $1,500 to $3,000 or more, depending on the size of the venue, according to J&J Sports President Joseph Gagliardi. Many commercial establishments look for ways to illegally use a lower-priced residential signal."

    Pay-Per-View Wrestles With Bar Owners - Businessweek
     
  13. pmcd

    pmcd Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Well I am not going to lead a march to ban dangerous activities. As you pointed out there are a heck of a lot of dangerous things we all do and we should be free to do them. Heck, walking on a sidewalk is dangerous.

    The evidence that football and boxing is dangerous, because of the nature of the head blows, seems very solid. People are experiencing concussions regularly and it will cause head trauma. There are billions being paid by spectators to see people kill themselves. Something doesn't seem right there, especially in the nanny state that forces us to use car seat belts, helmets on motorcycles/bikes, baby seats in cars, etc ...

    I agree that playing sports is risky. I guess the issue is the amount of risk. If the chances are 50% that football players will suffer head traumas then that is very different then the small probability of being hit in the head by a baseball. At some point if the risk is too high then we should probably rethink the sport. Heck, duelling entails risk yet I believe it isn't currently an accepted practice.

    I am pretty strong on keeping the government out of our lives so I am very uneasy with them getting into the banning game. Perhaps we should all just be aware of the risks of football, duelling, gunfights, etc ... Once we know what they are then we can decide what, if anything, should be done. I do suspect that boxing and football have a risk level that is untenable. Where is Howard Cosell when we need him ( on boxing).

    That being said, I am rooting for Aereo.

    Philip
     
  14. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    Lol! Philip

    Ya can't have it both ways. Either the gov is entitled to interfere in our lives or they aren't. Both the college and NFL are constantly altering the rules of the game where head injuries are concerned. I like that they are attempting to police themselves.

    I only wish the cable & network industries would do the same and settle the question of how the new forms of media access will be dealt with. If the cable companies were thinking straight, they would welcome Aereo. Cable still has a corner on the ISP market. They are straddling both worlds for goodness sake. Remember, TIVO faced the same opposition. Now there is a DVR of some kind in almost every household. And Aereo isn't promising the ability to fast forward on commercials. Cable company DVRs do!

    Two dogs gotta bone. While they're fighting da lil dog walks away w/the bone...

    Carl
     
  15. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    Another quick observation:

    All the major companies that have had a corner of the market have systematically chosen to remain entrenched in their old ways of doing things. This is the reason that monopolies stagnate markets. Rather than find ways to better their prospects for the future innovations already facing them, they attempt to consolidate their position by fighting off the bearers of new technologies. It's never worked before and it can't work now.

    So, if the bell tolls, don't ask for whom. Win or lose Aereo, the internet, and ISPs independent of cable will be the new norm.

    Unless Cable & Networks wake up...

    Carl
     
  16. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The "evidence" seemed pretty clear cut 40+ years ago. This need to prove something which should be obvious reminds me of cigarette smoking and the long fought campaign to convince people to stop doing something that was clearly damaging to their health.

    "Punch-drunk" is not exactly a new term - Wikipedia says the condition was first described back in 1928 by a forensic pathologist who was a chief medical examiner.

    So while I'm all for people having the right to do what they want to themselves, I don't think they should have the right to do whatever they want to their children or cost me $$$. If they were making these decisions in an informed manner, that would be great, but because common sense is so un-common ... there's often little choice but to educate when young, and pass safety standards to protect people from themselves.
     
  17. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    Too political for me...

    At any rate, Aereo as well as Google TV should be treated as any other media access device is all I'm saying. As to the content, be it sports or program ratings, I'll leave it up to the content providers and the FCC to decide. I just don't think Cable & the networks should have the right to determine how viewers access that content. From what I've read so far, Xbox 360 will come out w/more media content than all the streaming devices so far.

    This gives them an unfair advantage...

    JMHO

    Carl
     
  18. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Aereo isn't a media access device, it is a service, charging customers for something the owners believe it doesn't own the rights to sell, this isn't complicated.
     
  19. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    But Google TV is and suffers the same lockout w/out charging. There is no subscription service on GTV devices. The argument there is that users are watching the content on the TV. Which cable wants to be able to claim exclusive rights to. It isn't as simple as it seems. Google TV is ideal for using w/a cable box. Primetime takes cables screwed up lineup and neatly organizes it in a user friendly way. Something Cable has utterly failed to do. I watched more TV shows after I got the Revue than ever before. Because the content was displayed in library fashion.

    The argument that the cable companies are fighting Aereo over their right to charge a fee to access their content is a myth and an obvious misdirection. They are suing Aereo for the simple right to exist. GTV went out of their way to accommodate the various settop boxes not only for cable, but also for direct TV. There was even a hope of partnerships. In my opinion the networks never intended to partner w/Google.

    But after all is said and done you may be right in the end & Aereo will lose.

    And so will the consumer...

    Carl
     
  20. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh, I suspect the networks could be convinced to license their shows to Aereo in the same way they've done it with everyone else ... $2/episode to the consumer.

    If Aereo loses it would be a major blow to Aereo customers, but it would sustain the status-quo for other viewers - and that may be a major win; but it's hard to predict how things would shake out. If Aereo won, it would all but eliminate copyright protection on over the air media. And in that case, the question becomes ... who would broadcast, if broadcasting eliminated most if not all their rights?

    Someone surely would ... but is gaining the ability to watch community TV for Aereo customers somehow more important than losing the ability to watch NFL football over the air for everybody else?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

xbmc legal in canada