Aereo Files Appeal to Deny Injunction

There is a difference

Yes, Cablevision pays to BROADCAST network shows, as it should according to current laws.

Aereo on the other hand SINGLECAST network shows just as users do in their homes with an antenna connected to the home in some way. Just because the antenna has grown in length does not change the fact that it is still a singlecast.

I personally would argue that cable and sat should not have to pay to broadcast channels that are available free OTA. They are mutually beneficial to each other so it should be a wash.

reply to gaforces
I think the company's purpose is to let the users broadcast shows to themselves.

reply to gaforces
Yes, big difference. Unfortunately that's not how the headlines roll here.

People have got to face it that TV production is not cheap. People who work in the TV industry need to be paid and that money has to come from somewhere.

Investors who own shares in media companies also want a healthy return on investment.

They're not going to give up control so easily.

reply to Skippy25
How can it be different if Aereo is arguing that it's the same as Cablevision's network DVR case?

Looks like Aereo wants to have its cake and eat it.

Cablevision does not singlecast their live channels, they broadcast them which is why they pay. They singlecast their remote DVR, at least that was their argument, was it not?

Aereo is SINGLECAST entirely.

reply to fifty nine

reply to fifty nine
How did TV survive before cable and sat? Oh that's right, ads and product placements.

Investors can want it all, but that doesnt mean they are going to get what they want.

reply to Skippy25
Your using technobabble doublespeak, just like aereo tried to do.
The judge didnt fall for it last time, I doubt it will fly again.
--
Let them eat FIBER!

reply to Dodge
The problem is that the locals do NOT get paid for commercials on Aereo, because there is no ratings tracking. No ratings tracking = no ratings = no ad revenue for those incremental viewers on Aereo. THAT is the base reason why they are suing Aereo, because they get zero revenue from them. OTA viewers are tracked by the ratings services. Cable/Sat viewers of the retrans locals are also tracked.

reply to Skippy25
This shows a basic misunderstanding of copyright. Even when performed publicly, copyrighted content is still copyrighted, and the copyright owner still has the rights to any other use of that public performance.

For example, you go to a free concert, record it, and then sell the recording on the Internet without getting permission. That's a copyright violation.

Same thing with OTA broadcasts. Just because you can pick it up OTA and record or retransmit it, doesn't mean it's legal to do so.

You also don't understand the local stations' business model. They get revenue from both retrans rights agreements, and also ads. However they only get the ad revenue if the ratings services can track their shows' ratings. Random, uncontrolled retrans isn't tracked and therefore generates zero incremental ad revenue for the locals.

reply to Skippy25
I think it's not about broadcast vs. singlecast. The Network DVR case is about providing content to customers who have paid for access to the content, and there is a retrans agreement in place with the content owners, including the use of DVRs. The question decided there is does it have to be a physical DVR on premise at the customer's home. Aereo is quite different, in that there is no retrans agreement in place. The question with Aereo is, are they doing retrans, or are they really just a shared antenna. I think it's cut and dried that they are doing retrans, because they modify the stream, and also provide time shifting services. I see no way this ruling won't go against Aereo.

reply to Skippy25

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Well they could cut a deal with Areeo to get accurate ratings data from all its users.
But then thay have to admit that the numbers they get from Nealson are grossly over inflated and that commercials should cost a lot less.

Getting accurate ratings data back to broadcasters is trivial with todays tech, so why are networks still using the fuzzy math that Nealson provides if not to keep their business model afloat?
--
no .sig found, please restart your browser.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
With bi-directional cable boxes it is a simple matter for a cable company to see what you are watching but how does a rating service track OTA viewers and why wouldn't it be the same for Aero?

reply to elray

quote:

---

Without investors, there will be no programming you want to watch.
Seeking a profit is not "wanting it all".

---

reply to elray

reply to MyDogHsFleas
I would disagree with your statement as they are not retransmitting anything any more than you retransmit if you have an antenna in your attic. The antenna in this case just happens to be further away.

Same would hold true for the recording and time shifting. You can do that in your home right now without the need for you to enter into a retransmit agreement with them, so why would you need it now?

reply to gaforces
I am speaking facts. Singlecast is not broadcast in any way whatsoever.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
This has nothing to do with a public performance, you are injecting things that have nothing to do with this into it.

I do understand local stations business model and frankly could care less as they adapt or die. Being this is not a retrans question, your last sentence does not apply.