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This discussion has been archived.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're working under a slight handicap. You happen to be human.
(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.