Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by NCommander on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:55PM   Printer-friendly
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:31PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:31PM (#59974)

    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!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:54PM

    by RaffArundel (3108) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:54PM (#59989) Homepage

    Ah, okay, now I kinda see your point. Here is the section in question:

    An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event.

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @07:33PM (#60027)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:47PM (#60132)

      > 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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:31AM (#60186)

        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

    by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday June 26 2014, @05:15PM (#60429) Journal

    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! :)