Re:The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
by AnthonyMouse on Monday April 29, 2024 @05:51PM
(#40204548)
Didn't Aereo lose because they were basically found to be a cable company which then subjects them to a specific set of different rules?
Re:The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
by sp332 on Monday April 29, 2024 @07:07PM
(#40205244)
Yes, but that doesn't change the setup. They had a separate antenna and a separate server making separate copies of the shows for each user.
But, even after the Supreme Court said they were operating more like a cable company https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-pu... they were not allowed to actually operate like a cable company. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/in-win-for-broad...
Re:The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
by AnthonyMouse on Monday April 29, 2024 @07:24PM
(#40205390)
Sounds like they had bad lawyers (or bad judges). Shouldn't be simultaneously possible to be a cable company and not.
But as IA isn't to my knowledge doing controlled digital lending with broadcast television, is there any plausible argument they would be found to be a cable company?
Re:The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
by paulmd on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @11:43AM
(#40212309)
IA is doing a whole lot of digital lending other than television and that’s part of what this lawsuit is about iirc.
Re:The Internet Archive's last-ditch effort to save itself
by paulmd on Thursday May 02, 2024 @07:45AM
(#40235013)
I’m not sure what you’re asking - they lost because the “we just host personal antennas for subscribers, it’s 1:1 between antennas and subscribers with no Y therefore it’s not rebroadcasting” was found to not be a viable argument, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Like this is a weird “that’s not true, weren’t they actually…” that recites all the same reasons I just said they were found to be infringing?
of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they are easily taken away by a plaintiff with money. if you don't have the money to defend the right, you don't have the right (and in fact stand a good chance of getting the right taken away for everyone else too).