Two years later in Sony v. Universal Studios, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that video recordings constituted copyright infringement. By 1986, videocassettes had become the motion picture industry's largest source of revenue.
Three decades later, the court is once again considering whether a new technology -- one that relies on cloud computing to store programming -- violates the Copyright Act. And as in decades past, there are parties on both sides warning of the huge economic consequences that could come from the court's ruling.
Link - (
New Window )
It will be fun to see where this goes.
But if the broadcasters win, it could have far-reaching implications on future cloud computing. As DVRs start processing toward the cloud, networks and producers could scream copyright protection and choose to bar their programs from cloud-based DVR services, or (much more likely) charge viewers a fee for the privilege of recording their show onto your cloud-based DVR. Not gonna be home in time for the start of your favorite show? Are you willing to pay $2 for the ability to record that episode? What if you're regularly watching the episodes on tape delay (maybe the kids' bedtime isn't until 9:15, but your show starts at 9)? Would you pay $20 for a season recording pass?
And I agree with WideRight. This court is gonna side with the broadcasters. Whoever has the chance to make the most money or exert the most influence with their money tends to be favored by this court.
No, I'm not joking. This is what they are threatening to do. They would cease broadcasting over the air. Their telecasts would only be available via cable and satellite.
Would a decision like this eventually lead to people choosing their channels without packages and paying what they want? Internet cable would be sa-weet.
If they side with the broadcasters we just have to vote the Supreme Court out of office.
J/K
I think pirating will be rampant if the broadcasters win.
Would a decision like this eventually lead to people choosing their channels without packages and paying what they want? Internet cable would be sa-weet.
No, this is only about stations which broadcast over-the-air, I.e.: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc.
If they follow through on their threats to pull their broadcasts off the airwaves, the outcry to Congress could provoke legislation.
My understanding is that the Obama Administration, including the Justice Department and the U.S. Copyright Office, have sided with the broadcasters.
As a general matter, courts typically defer to the interpretation of a statute by the agency which Congress has given the authority to implement its provisions. That is a basic rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The rationale is that the courts should defer to the right of the legislative branch to make policy, including the allocation of that right to executive branch agencies. The agencies are also more knowledgeable than the courts about the subject matter of the statute in question.
This is important because the legality of what Aereo is doing depends on an interpretation of the copyright act, namely whether their retransmission is a "public" or "private" use. My understanding is that public uses require payment, and private uses do not.
The copyright office has said that this is a public use. The Supreme Court could simply uphold that interpretation as a reasonable construction of the statute, without actually deciding if it is correct. They may not be looking to decide the issue in the abstract, but simply whether the interpretation of the copyright office is reasonable. If it is, and it certainly seems defensible, then they might just defer to their judgment according to the aforementioned rule.
That of course would end Aereo unless Congress amended the copyright act. And the broadcasters presumably have more than enough sway in Congress to prevent that from happening.
Again, I'm not saying this will happen, but based on the limited amount I know, it could be a possible way of deciding the case.
Link - ( New Window )
Interesting. And I guess you can even say that holds for the Kelo case where Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter ruled for Goliath.
no different than if a guy came over to your apartment installed and leased you an over the air antenna ..and a dvr
it could go either way
but if aereo wins - you will see ALL network programing move to cable
this includes football
the only thing on broadcast tv will be news ,infomercials and an occasional rerun from their cable networks show
it will truly be a wasteland
Link - ( New Window )
Would a decision like this eventually lead to people choosing their channels without packages and paying what they want? Internet cable would be sa-weet.
The problem is that you've already proven to the cable company that you'll pay them $128 to watch MSG. Why should they price it any lower than that if they go a la carte?
From those two sound bites, it seems to be.
Regardless of the ruling, technological advances are going to render this decision meaningless. Slingbox for broadcast signals anyone?
[...]
During a one-hour-long oral argument on Tuesday, several justices appeared troubled about a ruling that would deal a blow to increasingly popular cloud computing services in which personal files - including TV shows and music - are stored remotely on the Internet on servers from companies such as Google Inc, Microsoft Corp, DropBox Inc and Box Inc.
Justice Stephen Breyer told the networks' lawyer, Paul Clement, that his legal argument "makes me nervous about taking your preferred route."
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito were among others who raised similar concerns.
A number of justices also seemed skeptical about Aereo's business model. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the technology used by the company had any purpose other than skirting copyright law.
Link - ( New Window )
The new McCane law will force the broadcasters to continue the broadcasting of the over the air signals. Not will allow them not to back out and yank it from the airwaves especially since the right to watch via antenna has always been protected by law.
Link - ( New Window )
And while it is a valid argument that their technology is set up to allow their business model to remain legal, well, that's what everyone does.
Quote:
that I pay about $128 bucks a month just so I can get a package from Optimum that has MSG, and I actually watch about $10 bucks worth every month?
Would a decision like this eventually lead to people choosing their channels without packages and paying what they want? Internet cable would be sa-weet.
The problem is that you've already proven to the cable company that you'll pay them $128 to watch MSG. Why should they price it any lower than that if they go a la carte?
That's not exactly reflective of how cable is priced. Though your bill doesn't show it transparently, you're paying for 2 things: Content (TV channels), and the cable infrastructure to deliver it. In an ala carte system, you would see the costs for these transparently. Probably half your bill goes to paying for infrastructure -- the cables, the dishes and antennas, the servers, and all the personnel who support them. The rest is content.
Content fees are not set by the cable company, but by the cable channels themselves. MSG as an example, charges the cable company around $5 for each subscriber they have. The cable company is just passing that cost along.
In an ala carte system. Mattnyg05 could just pay a flat infrastructre fee, plus subscribe to the channels he was interested in. But each channel would cost much more. MSG for example is only watched by about 25% of cable subscribers, so they would have to charge at least $20 to receive the same revenue. But many subscribers would likely not be willing to pay that, so the price would likely be much higher.
If, however, you have to program/select each and every show BEFORE it airs and simply use their service as a means of capturing & storing it to view at your convenience(like one does now with a DVR) that another thing all together. You're simply renting an antenna and a DVR in a new way.
IMO, the lower courts have got it right so far(in ruling for Aereo) and if the broadcast companies are so mad, scramble the free signals and make everyone buy a decoder.
So my reaction to their threats to end over-the-air because one company is doing them a favor and finding a way for people to watch their shows (and ads) on mobile devices: "I call bullshit."
These well-dressed members of the telecommunications bar will be tapping their Gucci loafers a little longer than they expected before getting to that case. Such an anticipated case might normally be argued first in the day. But when a member of the Court has recused himself or herself, that case is often scheduled as the second argument, allowing the Justice in question to take the bench for the first case, then relatively inconspicuously slip out during the brief break between the first and second cases.
That may explain why the Aereo case was scheduled second today, because Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was originally recused. (The Justices typically don’t publicly explain why they are removing themselves.) Last week, however, the Court announced that Justice Alito would be participating in the Aereo case after all. Presumably he sold his stock in one or more of the corporate parties in the case, and thus no longer had a conflict, but there was no confirmation of that.
In the digital age, perhaps only someone as old as Justice Stephen G. Breyer (or older) would fret about what might happen to a store that sells “phonograph records.” [...]
One lawyer sought to persuade the Court that the cloud is falling, so to speak, while another said not to worry about it, and a third said it means nothing legally if it is only used with “a gimmick.” All three of those positions can’t be true, but the Court left little doubt that it will have to spend some time and effort exploring which one of them — if any — can be believed.
The legal issue before the Court is misleadingly simple: is Aereo violating copyright law with its system of renting out thousands of tiny antennas to a growing throng of customers so they can pick and choose the TV programs they want to watch, pulling them from “the cloud” whenever the mood stirs them to do so?
Read it all... - ( New Window )