CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: There is a difference said by MyDogHsFleas: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.
The Cablevision remote DVR case was based on two questions... 1) Does Cablevision's storage of the program constitute copyright infringement, and 2) Is the playback of that copy considered a 'public performance'. For both questions, the court answered "No." In the first instance it was because the subscriber is the one doing the copying... not Cablevision. Cablevision merely owns the machine. In the second instance it was because the recording is not available to 'the public' but only to the subscriber who made the recording possible. There was nothing mentioned about the content being paid for or retrans agreements, those issues didn't come up at all.
I think the question that will be argued is: Are they a 'Cable Company' which should be paying retrans agreement fees. Or are they just connecting an antenna to an already allowed remote DVR system. Under Aero's proposed system, would it be possible to watch TV live? If so, I would think they are dangerously close to being a 'Cable Company'.
»www.scribd.com/doc/4483955/Cable···Decision |
|
| Nice CXM. Retrans agreement is a big point in CV's amicus curae brief in the Aereo appeal, FYI. |
|
 BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA | reply to CXM_Splicer
Aereo's system is already up and running. Yes you can watch live TV. They've created lots of tiny antennas so that every subscriber has his/her own. So their claim is that they're renting a remote antenna to the user. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Bootes:Aereo's system is already up and running. Yes you can watch live TV. They've created lots of tiny antennas so that every subscriber has his/her own. So their claim is that they're renting a remote antenna to the user.
Then how are they not an Internet cable company? Isn't that what cable does... they provide an antenna and extend that to the customer? The customer pays a subscription which is basically a lease on the antenna, equipment, and cable wire to get it there. Granted there are also lots of channels that have nothing to do with OTA but what is the definition of 'retransmission'? Are they solely differentiated by the fact that it is a personal antenna vs. a shared one? |
|
|
|
BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | Yes, their argument is that they're simply renting an antenna and a cloud DVR to the customer. Every client has control of their own antenna to pick which channel to watch and recieves their own stream of the channel. They even require the customer to live/view the content in the area where they would have been able to receive the OTA signal. They check this via credit card billing address, IP, and GPS signal if available.
The difference with a cable company is that they receive one stream of a channel and then duplicate it to all of their clients.
So if 5 cable customers are watching Fox, the cable company is still receiving one Fox signal and retransmitting that signal to it's 5 customers. 1 in 5 out.
If 5 Aereo subscribers are watching Fox, they're each connecting to their antenna and tuning it to Fox. 5 in 5 out. |
|
