previous case The problem is that cablevision won because it was based on an old recording case . I think it was a supreme court ruling on vcrs .
This is completely different because it deals with OTA.
IF aereo wins this would effect the cable companies having to pay for serving 2479 11 and the other basic channels.
This is why aereo won't win. It would effect the whole industry.
Palo Alto, CA
Cable companies would still have to pay (assuming the local channel wants the to) to rebroadcast the local channels. The cable companies have one antenna picking up a local channel that they then send to all of their customers.
Aereo's point about the Cablevision DVR case was that the courts said it would be legal for a customer's DVR to be located at a Cablevision building and accessed remotely by the television viewer. Every customer still has his/her own "DVR" and their own recordings.
This is basically what Aereo is doing, but instead of cable TV going into the DVR, it's an antenna. Every Aereo customer gets his/her own antenna and DVR that the customer can access over the Internet. There's no question that this would be legal if done from your house. Aereo's saying why can't they be located in our office, like the CV DVR.
I guess we can rationalize it either way, but I'd bet if Aereo wins (unlikely), the lawsuits will fly as cablecos and iptv telcos sue to get out of retrans. It is huge $.
Cablevision and Aereo are very different situations. Aereo is just as controversial without the DVR service.
In Cablevision's case, the rights to the programming itself were not in question. The legal challenge was about the delivery and operation of the layered DVR service.
With Aereo, the right to the programming is the most important issue. Aereo appears to be aggregating and distributing a product they don't have the rights for.