I've had a crappy day overall. I guess I have to vent something somewhere -- ABC , FOX, NBC, CW , and CBS are broadcast on public airspace. Anyone with an antenna can get it for free. All that Aereo does (did?) was offer the public content in another format.
These broadcasting companies have the right to cry about it - they're big corporations. Big corporations are good at bitching, and moaning anytime something doesn't go in their favor. For the government to have a closed-door dinner to discuss the alleged problems with the plaintiffs (and not allow the defendant the same) cries foul play.
I highly doubt that the broadcasters are suffering, even with Aereo in existence. Last quarter (1Q, 2014), Comcast (NBC) reported over $3.568 billion in operating cash flow. Keep in mind, our economy is still in the dumpster. Had Aereo not been around, they might have hit $3.6 billion. Those bastards!
The idea that businesses should be able to make money is fine. If that wasn't the case, no one would go into business. That's capitalism. However, the idea that businesses should be able to make money off of public airspace that taxpayers pay taxes for the big businesses to use -- that is not fine.
Originally, TV services ran commercials to help pay the fees associated with using the airspace. They've come to the assumption that it's their airspace. It's not. It still belongs to you and me... Or at least it used to.
Half of what's on TV anymore is product placement anyway. You see it all the time: cars, phones, food franchises and clothing brands just to name a few. Then, after the product placement is over, there is a commercial break where more advertising is shoved down our throats -- against our will.
Don't rely on me to tell you the truth. Turn on your TV and surf through your channels. I bet more than half of the shows are either on a commercial break, or are advertising something in their sorry excuse for entertainment. It's maddening.
I suspect that is going to get worse. I'm sure before it's over they'll be monitoring us to make sure we sit through the commercials and fine us when we don't.
The greed will never end.
Next up is the internet companies. I know they're the same corporations, but they like to pretend they're not associated with one another. Get ready for the information super-highway: fast lane and super-fast lane (slow lane and "haha, I can't believe you paid the fee!" lane).
I'll stop now. That was soothing for the soul. Thanks for bearing with me :)
Let me continue what I began in the reply to @capguncowboy.
The networks are making large amounts of money on carriage fees. This is the money that cable companies have to pay in order to carry network TV. How they came to pay them is an interesting story:
Way back in the day, there was no such thing as cable TV. All TV was over the air (OTA). Unfortunately, OTA in the United States uses VHF and UHF radio waves, both of which are line of sight. If an individual doesn't have direct line of sight to the transmitter, they can't get the signal. So, if, say you lived in a valley in a very hilly area of Pennsylvania you weren't going to get TV.
The work around (oddly enough, first in a valley in a very hilly area of Pennsylvania) was to put a big antenna near the transmitter, then run the RF signal over a cable to the homes in the valley.
Initially, this was a win-win. Places that couldn't get the TV signal now could, and thus local affiliates and networks could charge more for advertising. Everybody was happy.
Then the networks decided they wanted more money. The FCC wrote rules that said that a cable company had to carry local OTA stations, unless the affiliate said otherwise. If they waived the "must carry" rule, they could charge for carriage. And most did.
This has become a main point of contention between cable and satellite providers and network affiliates, and you hear about blow ups between the two frequently.
Areo threatened to disrupt this model, by (basically) going back to the original cable model. They were allowing people to rent an antenna with a very long cord, or they were in my book. I personally don't understand the thinking of the SC on this one: given the previous rulings on VCRs and the Cablevision remote DVR, this seemed pretty simple to me. Obviously, this is why IANAL.
I got it about six times yesterday on three diff threads. I thought my post was too long ...then maybe because I wasn't responding to the original comment but to subsequent comments. I tried diff tactics but wasn't able to reproduce the error consistently in anyway. I'll keep posting and see if I find a pattern.
For what its worth ... I'm on a RAZR MAXX HD via Verizon.
Yup... I think that's the issue ... I hit REPLY to your comment and got the error message. BUT when I hit REPLY on my org post... I'm good ... my comment sticks.
ElaineD -- it'll take a few months for an injunction to issue (the case has to go back down for that part) but once it does, I doubt that Aereo will be able to afford the retransmission fees without a significant hike in the price... Here's hoping that some other, clever, motivated, WELL FUNDED (hint hint Matt) asshole comes along and starts selling little antennas connected to little DVRS that you can position in little, well-positioned spaces that you rent from said asshole. That would clear up the whole public performance issue. Only question left would be whether you can time and place shift content.
Well, I don't think that anybody is going to be trying to try and do a technology work around to the ruling.
Justice Alito in his dissent made the point that the majority made their ruling on the basis of appearances only. They ruled since this looked like "a performance" therefore it was a performance, regardless of the technology and details involved.
Personally, I'm staggered that a bunch of lawyers, people who make their living analyzing and exploiting details and loopholes in laws could say "well, the details don't matter", but that is what they did.
As a result, and I'm with Alito on this, cloud storage companies had better watch out. Using the "if it looks like a performance it is a performance" doctrine Dropbox, Amazon, etc are in big trouble. I'd say that the MPAA and RIAA are going to sue at any moment.
That posted before I was ready! : o
I just got Aereo last month, anyone else have it?
They may have lost in court but I don't think they're going anywhere!
Test...
I've had a crappy day overall. I guess I have to vent something somewhere -- ABC , FOX, NBC, CW , and CBS are broadcast on public airspace. Anyone with an antenna can get it for free. All that Aereo does (did?) was offer the public content in another format.
These broadcasting companies have the right to cry about it - they're big corporations. Big corporations are good at bitching, and moaning anytime something doesn't go in their favor. For the government to have a closed-door dinner to discuss the alleged problems with the plaintiffs (and not allow the defendant the same) cries foul play.
I highly doubt that the broadcasters are suffering, even with Aereo in existence. Last quarter (1Q, 2014), Comcast (NBC) reported over $3.568 billion in operating cash flow. Keep in mind, our economy is still in the dumpster. Had Aereo not been around, they might have hit $3.6 billion. Those bastards!
The idea that businesses should be able to make money is fine. If that wasn't the case, no one would go into business. That's capitalism. However, the idea that businesses should be able to make money off of public airspace that taxpayers pay taxes for the big businesses to use -- that is not fine.
Originally, TV services ran commercials to help pay the fees associated with using the airspace. They've come to the assumption that it's their airspace. It's not. It still belongs to you and me... Or at least it used to.
Half of what's on TV anymore is product placement anyway. You see it all the time: cars, phones, food franchises and clothing brands just to name a few. Then, after the product placement is over, there is a commercial break where more advertising is shoved down our throats -- against our will.
Don't rely on me to tell you the truth. Turn on your TV and surf through your channels. I bet more than half of the shows are either on a commercial break, or are advertising something in their sorry excuse for entertainment. It's maddening.
I suspect that is going to get worse. I'm sure before it's over they'll be monitoring us to make sure we sit through the commercials and fine us when we don't.
The greed will never end.
Next up is the internet companies. I know they're the same corporations, but they like to pretend they're not associated with one another. Get ready for the information super-highway: fast lane and super-fast lane (slow lane and "haha, I can't believe you paid the fee!" lane).
I'll stop now. That was soothing for the soul. Thanks for bearing with me :)
Oy! Periodically ...usually after I type a bunch... I get an "INTERNAL SERVER ERROR" message and my comment is gone!
Well said @capguncowboy.
Test...
Anyway... I'm with you! They provide a service ... not content... so where's the infringement?
My bet is they'll cut them in on a piece of the monthly subscription charge.
Good vent!
E
Hey...my post stuck! : D
Hey Elaine, how often are you getting an error when trying to comment? Any more details?
Just got an email with Aereo's statement regarding the decision. Haven't read it all yet...
http://blog.aereo.com/2014/06/statement-aereo-ceo-founder-chet-kanojia-united-states-supreme-court-decision/
E
Let me continue what I began in the reply to @capguncowboy.
The networks are making large amounts of money on carriage fees. This is the money that cable companies have to pay in order to carry network TV. How they came to pay them is an interesting story:
Way back in the day, there was no such thing as cable TV. All TV was over the air (OTA). Unfortunately, OTA in the United States uses VHF and UHF radio waves, both of which are line of sight. If an individual doesn't have direct line of sight to the transmitter, they can't get the signal. So, if, say you lived in a valley in a very hilly area of Pennsylvania you weren't going to get TV.
The work around (oddly enough, first in a valley in a very hilly area of Pennsylvania) was to put a big antenna near the transmitter, then run the RF signal over a cable to the homes in the valley.
Initially, this was a win-win. Places that couldn't get the TV signal now could, and thus local affiliates and networks could charge more for advertising. Everybody was happy.
Then the networks decided they wanted more money. The FCC wrote rules that said that a cable company had to carry local OTA stations, unless the affiliate said otherwise. If they waived the "must carry" rule, they could charge for carriage. And most did.
This has become a main point of contention between cable and satellite providers and network affiliates, and you hear about blow ups between the two frequently.
Areo threatened to disrupt this model, by (basically) going back to the original cable model. They were allowing people to rent an antenna with a very long cord, or they were in my book. I personally don't understand the thinking of the SC on this one: given the previous rulings on VCRs and the Cablevision remote DVR, this seemed pretty simple to me. Obviously, this is why IANAL.
Hey JonT, thanks for responding.
I got it about six times yesterday on three diff threads. I thought my post was too long ...then maybe because I wasn't responding to the original comment but to subsequent comments. I tried diff tactics but wasn't able to reproduce the error consistently in anyway. I'll keep posting and see if I find a pattern.
For what its worth ... I'm on a RAZR MAXX HD via Verizon.
Let me know if I can help.
E
Test...
JonT ...well heck... I thought I had it there for a sec! I was able to reply to the original but not sub comments... and then it let me! Hmm!
E
Very strange. I'll shake the developer's cages to see if they can find out anything.
As an aside...they still make RAZRs?
JonT ...it is odd. I think it occurs most when I respond to a sub comment.
Is there a time limit on how long a comment window can be open?
Or, is there a minimum amount of time one must wait between posts?
RE RAZR ...yup, they have another one for 2014. I think the major feature is a ridiculously long battery life.
E
Yup... I think that's the issue ... I hit REPLY to your comment and got the error message. BUT when I hit REPLY on my org post... I'm good ... my comment sticks.
E
do you see this message? "There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed."
@katylava ...nope, its a straight up white page with .. "Internal Server Error" ... in the upper left corner.
I wonder if I can do a print screen on my phone. Stand by... lol
E
Hey, I got a screen shot ... lemme know if you want it and where to send it.
actually, most useful would be an exact time. maybe i can find the error in our bug reporter by time.
ElaineD -- it'll take a few months for an injunction to issue (the case has to go back down for that part) but once it does, I doubt that Aereo will be able to afford the retransmission fees without a significant hike in the price...
Here's hoping that some other, clever, motivated, WELL FUNDED (hint hint Matt) asshole comes along and starts selling little antennas connected to little DVRS that you can position in little, well-positioned spaces that you rent from said asshole. That would clear up the whole public performance issue.
Only question left would be whether you can time and place shift content.
Cool ...so I still have time to watch futbol!!
Well, I don't think that anybody is going to be trying to try and do a technology work around to the ruling.
Justice Alito in his dissent made the point that the majority made their ruling on the basis of appearances only. They ruled since this looked like "a performance" therefore it was a performance, regardless of the technology and details involved.
Personally, I'm staggered that a bunch of lawyers, people who make their living analyzing and exploiting details and loopholes in laws could say "well, the details don't matter", but that is what they did.
As a result, and I'm with Alito on this, cloud storage companies had better watch out. Using the "if it looks like a performance it is a performance" doctrine Dropbox, Amazon, etc are in big trouble. I'd say that the MPAA and RIAA are going to sue at any moment.
Here's an update: http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/28/aereo-shutters-its-tv-streaming-service-for-now/