SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
This was the most unkindest cut of all.
-- William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:27PM
One interesting aspect is as I interpret it, now legally "when broadcasting" means any signal sent from a corporation to a lower lifeform like a human. Formerly in the telecom EE ish biz broadcast has/had a firm and clear technical meaning of one TX and many (possible/theoretical) RX, which is precisely how Aereo did NOT operate to avoid legal issues, they were solely point to point not technically broadcasting at all.
There are also interesting ham radio implications WRT the ban on broadcasting, well, if we redefine what it means to broadcast, then we've redefined whats banned in ham radio. Interesting. Maybe not useful in any possible way, but still interesting.
So this means point to point WISP or pt-pt microwave studio/transmitter links are now "broadcasting". Maybe some ECPA implications to this, too.
It'll be interesting to read detailed analysis of the side effects of this ruling.
(Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:12PM
I don't quite follow, but believe I get the rest of your post. Can you elaborate on this point?
I was under the impression there were already some pretty strict rules for amature broadcasters, at least here in the US. IIRC, if you weren't rebroadcasting amature radio stuff it better be a weather alert or other emergency information specifically intended for the public. Since they were already under tighter regulation, I don't quite see how this decision effects them at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:27PM
> I was under the impression there were already some pretty strict rules for amature broadcasters,
It might go the other way, if 1:1 counts as broadcasting, then the ham restriction on encryption might not apply any more since the single intended "receiver" would be able to receive it in the clear. That's the kind of thing that happens when we redefine words.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:38PM
ah don't try to rules lawyer with an old almost-QCWRA extra class, 97.113(a)(4) actually bans "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" which is interpreted as encryption but if anyone can't understand the meaning for whatever reason its still banned. So use Tolkien Elvish or Klingon all you want for pure fun on the air, but if you use it with the primary intent of obscuration you're THEN operating illegally. This was in fact a stereotypical ham radio holy war in the 70s and I don't remember how it turned out.
Or rephrased the problem has never been the mathematical act of encryption, its always been having the purpose of obscuration, for absolutely anyone not just the recipient.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:23PM
> its always been having the purpose of obscuration, for absolutely anyone not just the recipient.
When broadcast has been redefined to 1:1 there is no one else.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:55PM
That must cause fun with some American Indians. I'll wager that there aren't many FCC people who can understand any of the tribal languages.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:31PM
FCC part 97.113 Prohibited Transmissions section (b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting
I guess if the supremes say a private point to point conversation is now "broadcasting" even though it wasn't one-to-many, that will have some implications for ham radio point to point communications aka just generic standard QSOs.
Somehow I don't think it'll be enforced this way, but defining all 1 individual to 1 individual conversations as "broadcasting" it does technically make all ham radio use illegal, I think? Probably the loophole is the ham conversations are person - person not higher lifeform like corporation to lower lifeform like mere human.
Too much speculation without real lawyer analysis is a ham radio tradition going back innumerable decades, although its always utterly ineffective and meaningless. But good fun, and it is tradition!
(Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:54PM
Ah, okay, now I kinda see your point. Here is the section in question:
Again, I am neither a license holder nor a lawyer, but talking with my friends who were, I was under the impression this "broadcasting" is using the amature radio station for something other than a "conversation". Aereo certainly wasn't a licensed amature radio station, nor were they holding a conversation. I seriously doubt the ruling would be remotely used that broadly. It is an interesting point, and the SECOND time today you did that to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @07:33PM
I heard it mentioned the other day that this is the first example of a Supreme Court where not one of its members has ever run for elective office and that is what they have made such a shambles of campaign financing.
I'm going to guess that not one of them has ever used a traditional transmitter.
I wonder if any of them uses a cell phone.
It would surprise me if one of them could even accurately describe any part of a cell phone communication.
I doubt that any one of them has the slightest understanding of anything technological.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:47PM
> I wonder if any of them uses a cell phone.
I'm sure Kagan uses one. My mom's 20 years older than her and she's got a cell phone, its her main phone even.
Knowing much about how they work is another thing, but that's true for practically all demographics of cell phone users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:31AM
OTOH, I'm pretty sure your Mom doesn't make decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 26 2014, @05:15PM
International treaties *require* the US government to permit amateur radio operation. Under US law, international treaties have about equal standing to the Constitution. No mere law or court decision can ban amateur radio operation; any that would threaten it are automatically invalid! :)
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:15PM
No. The term "broadband" has been similarly misappropriated into a legal term, which now means "high speed" (with a continually moving goal-post), even used for baseband data connections, and yet the world hasn't fallen apart.
Every law has a section of definitions for terms used. Their usage of "broadcast" is no-doubt defined in those antique ham radio laws and won't be affected by this new, independent and unrelated definition of broadband. Many words have multiple definitions based on context, anyhow.
IANAL, and obviously neither are you.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:43PM
Its not a law its a regulation. So if the FCC wants to change it, to some extent they just file it and be done with it. Anyway I was motivated enough to look it up:
CFR 47 part 97.3 (a) The definitions of terms used in part 97 are:
(blah blah deleted)
(10) Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed.
So you actually did get me, but by the wrong mechanism, in that the FCC defines what broadcasting "is" based on the svc. So I was in fact wrong to assume whatever the supremes force as a redefinition of "watchin TV" would naturally affect part 97 operations because 97 defines its terms separately from other parts. This was actually interesting and I'm glad I got the motivation to look it up.
Also I think you're confusing broadband and broadcast, whatever.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:14PM
You think wrong. Read more closely. It was a similar example of legal wording being contradictory to technical wording.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:22AM
I think precedent is typically interpreted in a context sensitive manner so I think it's unlikely that this will be brought up in a different kind of case.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 26 2014, @04:56PM
This raises some interesting ways to fight such a ruling...
If broadcasting is now any transmission at all...then yes, under FCC rules amateur broadcasting is illegal so all amateur radio is also illegal. However, amateur radio is *also* governed by international treaties, such as CEPT, which *require* signing nations to permit amateur radio operation. Since international treaties have higher standing than acts of congress, which have higher standing than supreme court decisions...this treaty means the FCC cannot ban 1:1 transmission, which means the supreme court can't redefine broadcasts in this way, which means this ruling is invalid.
...IANAL, obviously ;)
(Score: 1) by Max Hyre on Friday June 27 2014, @10:23PM
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 30 2014, @11:54AM
SCOTUS defines what the laws mean, but that doesn't change the laws' relative standings.