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 Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @11:08AM
From the summary:
Why should that even matter for the legality? Back when cars were introduced, they clearly threatened the future of the horse carriage industry (and of several other industries linked to it, like horseshoe makers), does that mean cars should have been forbidden in order to protect the future of those industries?
Electricity threatened the future of the gas lighting industry. Should electricity have been forbidden back then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @05:20PM
"Company executives have argued in public and in court filings that the service appeals to cord cutters and will help broadcasters keep those viewers.""
Why should the government be concerned with broadcasters keeping their viewers? Why is it the governments job to ensure that broadcasters maintain their customers and income and to regulate the market in such a way as to ensure that a certain business stays in business no matter what?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Foobar Bazbot on Wednesday March 05 2014, @07:06PM
That shouldn't matter. But Aereo wants to file this case under "won", not "should have won", so they're dealing with reality instead of theory. In reality, we have quite a few judges who care more about maintenance of the status quo than about the law as written, so a successful case has to include reassurances for them.
(Score: 1) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 05 2014, @07:54PM
Aereo has argued that it [...] isn't threatening the future of the broadcast industry.
Why should that even matter for the legality?
The courts use whether the usage harms the rights holder as a guideline on whether something is fair use or not.