News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Spanish football league defends phone 'spying' by Rjevski on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @03:15AM (#17300962)
Anything that can be received for free over the air without signing any kind of license agreement should not count as "public performance" in my book.
Re:Spanish football league defends phone 'spying' by acjohnson55 on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @04:09AM (#17301223)
Aereo thought so too. Their business model was based around hosting colocated TV antennas, from which they streamed broadcast TV to users on a 1:1 basis, geofenced by broadcast market. The Supreme Court shot this argument down.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

The problem is that this is the business model of broadcast networks in a world of cable TV. The statutory retransmission fees funnel some cable TV revenue back to the broadcasters. It doesn't really make sense from first principles, but it has been a pragmatic compromise.

The messed up thing about Aereo is that after being shot down by the Supreme Court, they tried to get a license to operate as a cable company but were shot down on that front, too.

Re:Spanish football league defends phone 'spying' by darkarmani on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @01:54PM (#17305476)
Maybe they should have sold a share rather than leasing it? If a user owns an antenna and views their own stream, that's a private performance.
Re:Spanish football league defends phone 'spying' by acjohnson55 on Thursday June 14, 2018 @01:05PM (#17313188)
Yeah, that would be an interesting twist.

My guess is the RF tech is a lot easier to deploy when you can plan for some percentile of peak utilization, rather than 1:1 with the user base. Even then, they'd undoubtedly face legal challenges, so they must have made the judgment call that the odds were on their side. Which may have been a reasonable conclusion. A lot of the judgments were actually on their side until the circuit split and the final Supreme Court decision.

After all, one wouldn't imaging that leasing an old-school aerial antenna would be a legal issue.

It was a hot topic on HN several years back. I may be biased, as my wife did PR for Aereo through the firm she works for. But I definitely buy the logic that what they were doing was technical a private performance.