News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by mbreese on Friday January 10, 2014 @04:59PM (#7039811)
Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates. That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still getting something from iOS users.

This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission fees.

(Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and you see that it's all a big mess)

Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by acjohnson55 on Friday January 10, 2014 @05:19PM (#7039979)
^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I think it's high time for some changes, though.

Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna-to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV.

Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be required to host their own DVRs.

(Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)

Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by jamesbritt on Friday January 10, 2014 @08:37PM (#7041035)
But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV.

I agree, but it makes me think of when people say, "Well, you can't copyright an integer. And if I convert a DVD to a series of bits, and that series of bits expresses a very large integer, then I'm free to share that uncopyrightable number."

It's clever, and arguably true, but it just doesn't fly in real life. The color of bits bites you in the ass, and I sort of expect that to happen with Aereo as well.

Yeah, each part makes sense, but taken as a whole some judge is likely to think, "If it walks like a duck ..."

What's worse is if a judgement comes down against Aereo that, perhaps inadvertently, opens the door for abuse precisely because it ends up abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV.

Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by Dylan16807 on Sunday January 12, 2014 @01:20AM (#7045358)
In that scenario, the very premise is wrong. You can copyright integers under certain creative circumstances. It's not the use of logic that's broken.
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by jamesbritt on Sunday January 12, 2014 @04:38PM (#7047555)
Do you have an example of an integer copyrighted as an integer?
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by Dylan16807 on Sunday January 12, 2014 @06:20PM (#7047928)
Do you accept base 36?

How about hex http://daniel.haxx.se/hexpoetry/ http://daniel.haxx.se/hexpoetry/goodies.html

What matters is a certain level of creativity and art. 'as an integer' is no more meaningful than 'as postscript' or 'in times new roman'. It's about the underlying work.

Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by jamesbritt on Sunday January 12, 2014 @08:05PM (#7048247)
Intersting, though I think the copyright is with the readable poem, not the integer that can be derived by intepreting the poem as hex.

Has this ever been tested in court?

Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by brownbat on Friday January 10, 2014 @07:27PM (#7040710)
> Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent.

Definitely. Note though, that this was exactly the concern when cable came out, and got its start by delivering over the air broadcasts from faraway metropolises to subscribers in rural areas or other cities.

For anyone interested in the history of telecommunications, definitely check out Tim Wu's "The Master Switch. There's a section on how new cable companies fought against entrenched broadcasters back when the power dynamic was a little different, really shows how often this same battle repeats itself with different players every time.

Re:Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case by acjohnson55 on Monday January 13, 2014 @11:46PM (#7055441)
Unless the cable companies back in the day used separate antennas for each subscriber, it's not quite the same thing. Aereo actually bothers with this step.