Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by evilviper on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:15PM

    by evilviper (1760) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:15PM (#60065) Homepage Journal

    if we redefine what it means to broadcast, then we've redefined whats banned in ham radio

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:43PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:43PM (#60073)

    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

      by evilviper (1760) on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:14PM (#60114) Homepage Journal

      Also I think you're confusing broadband and broadcast

      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.