SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fluffeh writes:
"Following up on our earlier story, the Justice Department has filed in the Supreme Court supporting Broadcasters in their case against Aereo the company that rents a small antenna for each customer, lets them record free to air TV, the streams it back to them anywhere.
The Justice Department argues that by doing so, they are allowing their customers to 'gain access to copyrighted content in the first instance, the same service that cable companies have traditionally provided.' but do so without paying broadcasters a license fee to do so. Aereo has argued that it isn't violating federal copyright laws and isn't threatening the future of the broadcast industry. Company executives have argued in public and in court filings that the service appeals to cord cutters and will help broadcasters keep those viewers."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:59AM
It's clear that copyright prohibits one from reselling a work. That is irrelevant here.
If you beam a signal out to the world, it seems pretty obvious that people can and will receive it. It doesn't matter whether it's a television signal, or police radio, or whatever. Trying to prohibit people from receiving a signal is pointless and pretty stupid.
Where my antenna is standing, and whether I own the antenna or only rent it, it is *my* antenna receiving a public broadcast that *I* can then view. That's all that's happening here, nothing to see, move on. That such a clear case made it past the first court, is really almost beyond belief.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mrbluze on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:06AM
It's the best justice that money can buy.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Khyber on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:17PM
"If you beam a signal out to the world, it seems pretty obvious that people can and will receive it."
In fact, the FCC has CLEAR REGULATIONS regarding that very fact, which allows us to record/watch/display that OTA signal if it is received by any part of our property.
Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
(Score: 0) by VLM on Wednesday March 05 2014, @01:00PM
Maybe the whole point of the farce is to "fix" that little bug.
So owning a VCR or DVR or tivo would be a DMCA circumvention violation.
Luckily we have a free market, unlike those economies where a strong overbearing central government picks the winners and losers. That's why we're so rich and successful. Freedumb!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday March 05 2014, @01:48PM
Right. If you broadcast it, people will receive it.
However, you seem to be making a leap from that fact to what seems to be an assertion that, once you broadcast it, you lose any rights to control what someone who receives the content does with it. And that's where the law gets squirrelly. Putting something OTA once doesn't mean putting the content in the public domain.
Just because you can't stop me receiving the broadcast doesn't mean I can charge other for your content (which is why bars have to pay sports broadcasters ti show games on TV). It doesn't mean I can receive a signal, then re-broadcast it to others without your permission (which is why cable companies have to pay OTA broadcasters). It doesn't mean I can record a movie on TV, burn it to a DVD, and sell it to others. You can't stop me from doing these things with your broadcast signal, but it doesn't make them legal under copyright law. You might argue that they SHOULD be legal, but that's not where the law is right now.
Recording, modifying, rebroadcasting are all activities that require either permission from the rights holder or to be activities covered under copyright safe harbors such as fair use. It's why it required the Supreme Court to weigh in on the Betamax case [wikipedia.org] to find that personal time shifting constituted fair use.
It's why Arero is in such a grey area. On the one hand, it's my leased antenna in a different place, so it's just standard "receiving a broadcast". On the other hand, they have to transmit the received signal to you from the antenna, which is arguably re-broadcasting. And they are charging money for that service.
You may not like the law, but calling it "obviously inapplicable" isn't reasonable. Yes, broadcasters DO have the right (under current law) to control what people do with received signals.
Don't get me wrong - I'm with you that I think what Aereo is doing is reasonable (IMO it's very similar to the Betamax case as personal fair use), but that doesn't mean that this should have been laughed out of the first court it came into.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aighearach on Wednesday March 05 2014, @06:33PM
However, you seem to be making a leap from that fact to what seems to be an assertion that, once you broadcast it, you lose any rights to control what someone who receives the content does with it.
Is that a straw man, eating a red herring?
Like he said, "It's clear that copyright prohibits one from reselling a work."
So no, not only was there no "leap" to it, or assertion that it is so, you claim the exact opposite. The fact is that not reselling is all that copyright does. It doesn't allow any broad right to control "what someone who received the content does with it." Only republishing is controlled.
And like he says, "Where my antenna is standing, and whether I own the antenna or only rent it, it is *my* antenna receiving a public broadcast that *I* can then view." Your claims of broad control would mean that if I buy a book, the copyright holder gets to decide when and where and if I can resell it. But that is not the case at all. Your example about recording a movie on TV starts with making an unauthorized copy. Then you try to create similarities with the case at hand. But that doesn't work, because whatever you add is unneeded. In the real case, the antenna is rented, and the rules are clear for over-the-air-broadcast; if it is your own antenna, you can record at play it back later. That is fair use.
Your example is covered by past Supreme Court precedent where the court found that the a motel with a VHS machine for each room is still re-broadcasting movies, not playing home collections. This is very different in 2 obvious ways; 1, people are actually choosing what to record off their antenna; the business is not recording what they think they viewers will want, and then pointing at the antenna. The antenna is really being controlled by the actions of the antenna-renter. And second, over-the-air broadcasts have taken on additional restrictions because it is not their airwaves. They're leasing the airwaves from the People, through the Government.
Also, you botched the bars issue. "Just because you can't stop me receiving the broadcast doesn't mean I can charge other for your content (which is why bars have to pay sports broadcasters ti show games on TV)." Bars have to pay to have permission to re-broadcast, NOT to charge others. If they charge a cover, or show it free, that makes no difference. If they have the permission to show it, then they can charge. Likewise, if the customer owns an antenna, and you're operating their TV infrastructure for them, you can charge anything you want. The right of the customer to that information is based on the legal requirement that the owner of the antenna can record and time-shift it. The broadcaster doesn't control any of the rest, how you pay for your TV, if your TV displays on a computer screen, or a big screen, or a wristwatch TV.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bugamn on Wednesday March 05 2014, @01:52PM
I believe copyright prohibits one from copying a work, not reselling. I can resell the books I have, but I cannot make new copies (and then sell those).