SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
NCommander
on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:55PM
from the why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept.
from the why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 against Aereo, saying that Aereo's scheme to lease out thousands of tiny antennas doesn't differentiate it from a cable company, and therefore Aereo violates copyright law. "In a 6-3 opinion (PDF) written by Justice Steven Breyer, Aereo was found to violate copyright law. According to the opinion, the company is the equivalent of a cable company, which must pay licensing fees when broadcasting over-the-air content. "Viewed in terms of Congress; regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo's system from cable systems, which do perform publicly," reads the opinion."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are not dead yet. But watch for further reports.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:02PM
I took an opportunity to glance through the brief on Ars before this went live, and the logic is kinda ... odd. Basically, it boils down to the fact that in the late 60s, the supreme court ruled repeater systems (which boost OTA signal) were legal, as they did not "perform" anything, and thus not in violation to the copyright act. In the 70s, Congress closed this loophole to specifiably overturn the SCOTUS decision. The argument here is that since its being re-broadcast, its being performed, and thus Aereo ... is a cable company in effect.
Ultimately, SCOTUS went and invented a new type of "like-a-cable-company" test to specifically kill Aereo since what they were doing wasn't technically illegal, but went against was Congress intended, and as such, closed the original loophole they used. The dissent (written by Scala) is pretty damning on the logic this case is using, and I'm honestly shocked how much I agreed with how it ripped the majority apart.
When I have more time, I'll read the brief in full, but I'm struggling to follow the train of logic SCOTUS is used to apply to this case.
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:17PM
The interesting thing about this decision is that Scalia, Thomas and Alito were the 3 dissenting judges. Aren't these guys usually on the side of Big Biz?
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:25PM
Yes I noticed that too. I was expecting Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and perhaps Kagan to be the dissent. That they aren't, and that the dissent comes from the most extreme conservatives on the court I think again points up one of the biggest faults of the so-called political left, which is their copyright extremism. They're liberal on most things. But the left is not at all the left on anything Hollywood is against, like extensive reform of copyright. Heck, can't even get them to admit that copying is copying, not stealing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:28PM
Actually, in the dissent, they felt that Aereo is running around existing laws, but this isn't SCOTUS's job to fix, its Congress (page 33/34) of the brief).
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:01PM
I believe enforcing existing laws is the executive branch's job. (writing new laws: congress; checking that those laws are constitutional and interpreting actions against established law: judiciary) at least that's what "schoolhouse rock" would have us believe. (yet we really need a new set of those excellent cartoons to how K-street factors in)
(Score: 1) by Max Hyre on Friday June 27 2014, @08:47PM
and much the same goes for the VP, all of Congress, and Federal judges.
Unfortunately, as observed in Cracking DES [cryptome.org], ``All too often, convincing Congress to violate the Constitution is like convincing a cat to follow a squeaking can opener[.]''
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:54PM
How very strange that compliance with the letter-of-the-law is perfectly okay for big financial institutions, but not so for tech companies.
The courts *interpret* laws, and wherever it's unclear, try to base decisions on the *intentions* of those who created it, rather than the letter.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 3, Funny) by SpockLogic on Wednesday June 25 2014, @08:23PM
I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Wow, I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd ever write that.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII