SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
Dopefish
on Friday February 21 2014, @12:00PM
from the what-doesn't-kill-you-makes-you-stronger dept.
from the what-doesn't-kill-you-makes-you-stronger dept.
Fluffeh writes:
"Although there are arguments scheduled for 22 April in the Supreme Court, US District Judge Dale Kimball of Utah ruled against Aereo which effectively bans it in Utah along with the rest of the 10th Circuit, which includes Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado.
Kimball ruled that Aereo's retransmission of Plaintiffs' copyrighted programs "is indistinguishable from a cable company and falls squarely within the language of the Transmit Clause." He didn't buy Aereo's argument that its system of renting a tiny antenna to each customer allows it to avoid the "Transmit Clause" of the 1976 Copyright Act, which determines what kind of "transmissions" of copyrighted material must pay licensing fees."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Aereo Suffers Loss and Hopes for Supreme Court Win
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"The subspace _W inherits the other 8 properties of _V. And there aren't
even any property taxes."
-- J. MacKay, Mathematics 134b
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dave on Friday February 21 2014, @07:39PM
To touch on this point; If the end user does not have direct point to point communication with the receiver (antenna), in the originally received format, isn't that inherent retransmission by Aereo?
i.e. We're going from a digital signal over the air, then re-packaging that signal into another format. Digital OTA -> TCP\IP etc.
Just to clarify, I don't think they should be shutdown... I'm "just sayin.."
This biggest issue, of course, is that they're making money off of it without giving the content providers any kickbacks.
Nothing about you is permanent.
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:44PM
The retransmission angle has bothered me for a while and I just saw this comment. I'm not really sure, but format shifting and non-commercial retransmission by the consumer is already allowed with VHS. The key loophole Aereo is exploiting is that the consumer is the one in control and ownership (?) of the equipment. I think this is going to be hard for the court to decide because the ownership question is tricky. I think I'd be legally allowed to rent a VCR to tape shows in an apartment and in that case I wouldn't own any of the equipment used to format shift and retransmit whatever I recorded with it. If SCOTUS judges against Aereo it will be interesting to see if they can do it without also making a lot of other currently legal actions suddenly illegal.