Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
by danielrhodes on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @11:20AM
(#7944490)
To add to this, they didn't see a distinction between transmitting and performance, and felt the law was clear about the distinction between the role of the viewer and the performer. What was made clear was that one person could not hold both roles.
On if such a performance was private or public: the decision said that it was a moot point as the "commercial objective" of Aereo was the same as if it were public. The law as it stands did not intend to separate private and public performances.
Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
by bediger4000 on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @11:09AM
(#7944417)
Oh, goody! Do we all now get to apply that type of reasoning to all laws? The CFAA of 1986 is a good one to apply it to, don't you think?
Also, how about applying the spirit of the Statute of Queen Anne. Wouldn't like that one, I'm thinking.
"Spirit of the Law" - humbug.
Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
by untog on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @11:14AM
(#7944451)
Do we all now get to apply that type of reasoning to all laws?
We don't, no. The Supreme Court does, however.
Re:Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
by danielweber on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @11:18AM
(#7944472)
"Oh, the law says no cars in the park but I'm driving my pick-up truck through the park! Ha ha, I win, I talked the computer to death like Kirk did on Star Track!1"
The spirit of the law as passed was to stop cable companies capturing and rebroadcasting over-the-air TV signals without compensation. So it shouldn't be too surprising that the Supreme Court made the judgement they did.
It's quite simple: when this law was created, was Aereo's use case considered? If the answer is 'no', then you can expect the law to be refined to cover it at a later date. Odd legal loopholes don't get to stand just because they've been around for a while.