Aereo loses Supreme Court case. Here's a good link sorry about that boys and girls


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher...-cable-tv/

MO this Supreme Court has shown time and time again it sides with big business and interest ...not the little guy. Extrapolating from this I believe if the P5 end up having to go to the court system and it reaches the SC it bodes well for them, just MO

Umm, cool?

This was a no brainer. Aereo was essentially charging a fee to rebroadcast content. Just like they say on every single NFL football game---"rebroadcast without the express written consent of the network and the National Football League is expressly prohibited". The antenna rental angle was a stretch. It reminds me of a tweet I saw recently. It said "lol. I refuse to pay for content I have already illegally downloaded".

(06-25-2014 10:11 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  MO this Supreme Court has shown time and time again it sides with big business...not the little guy. Extrapolating from this I believe if the P5 end up having to go to the court system and it reaches the SC it bodes well for them, just IMO

Well ... maybe .. but usually when this political statement is made -- "Supreme Court sides with big business" -- it infers that the conservatives on the court have sided with big business.

In this ruling, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, adn Samuel Alito were the minority opinion. Arguably the 3 most conservative voices on the court.

So .... I don't think this is as cut and dry as you may think.


As far as how this bodes for college athletics ... who the hell really knows. That's a complicated mess of issues.



.

(06-25-2014 10:11 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  MO this Supreme Court has shown time and time again it sides with big business...not the little guy. Extrapolating from this I believe if the P5 end up having to go to the court system and it reaches the SC it bodes well for them, just IMO

If they're businesses, then they need to hire an accountant to address their tax situation. It's time they pay up.

(06-25-2014 10:18 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:11 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  MO this Supreme Court has shown time and time again it sides with big business...not the little guy. Extrapolating from this I believe if the P5 end up having to go to the court system and it reaches the SC it bodes well for them, just IMO

Well ... maybe .. but usually when this political statement is made -- "Supreme Court sides with big business" -- it infers that the conservatives on the court have sided with big business.

In this ruling, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, adn Samuel Alito were the minority opinion. Arguably the 3 most conservative voices on the court.

So .... I don't think this is as cut and dry as you may think.


As far as how this bodes for college athletics ... who the hell really knows. That's a complicated mess of issues.



.

It doesn't have much at all to do with college athletics other than it would tend to support the already existing basic concept of media rights. It was only a big deal if Aereo won. It would have significantly undermined the exclusivity of a companies media rights.

Yep. After reading the brief, it wasn't technology that was the issue, it was that there were 'rebroadcasting' nearly the same time as the OTA broadcast and that in my opinion is considered a re-broadcaster as the cable companies are held to. If Areo only allow subscribers to access shows say 6hr + after the broadcast I don't think its as big of an issue. I did not know Areo was sending the signal about the same time. I had thought also, perhaps because the equipment didn't reside in you house it would be an issue. So, now Aero will have to pay fees to the broadcaster (if wanted) to carry it real time.

(06-25-2014 10:11 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  MO this Supreme Court has shown time and time again it sides with big business and interest ...not the little guy. Extrapolating from this I believe if the P5 end up having to go to the court system and it reaches the SC it bodes well for them, just MO

It was the 3 most conservative jurors that dissented-Scalia, Alito and Thomas (edit-see Pervis beat me to this comment). I think it was just about the interpretation of property rights.

(06-25-2014 10:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:18 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 10:11 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  MO this Supreme Court has shown time and time again it sides with big business...not the little guy. Extrapolating from this I believe if the P5 end up having to go to the court system and it reaches the SC it bodes well for them, just IMO

Well ... maybe .. but usually when this political statement is made -- "Supreme Court sides with big business" -- it infers that the conservatives on the court have sided with big business.

In this ruling, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, adn Samuel Alito were the minority opinion. Arguably the 3 most conservative voices on the court.

So .... I don't think this is as cut and dry as you may think.


As far as how this bodes for college athletics ... who the hell really knows. That's a complicated mess of issues.



.

It doesn't have much at all to do with college athletics other than it would tend to support the already existing basic concept of media rights. It was only a big deal if Aereo won. It would have significantly undermined the exclusivity of a companies media rights.

Yes, it Aereo had won it could have been a huge deal for college athletics. Probably would have gutted conference networks if they were successful in getting people to buy their service. Their loss is pretty much status quo.

I've not had time to read it yet but I had suspected that Aereo was a loser because they weren't truly an "antenna service", they transformed the signal. Rather than sending you the raw signal from the antenna, they were processing it and then streaming that converted signal.

None of this means the service is dead, it just means they have to pay the rebroadcast fees. Since they aren't notably cheaper than available locals only services in most if any markets I don't see them being terribly competitive once they pay the retransmission fees.

(06-25-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've not had time to read it yet but I had suspected that Aereo was a loser because they weren't truly an "antenna service", they transformed the signal. Rather than sending you the raw signal from the antenna, they were processing it and then streaming that converted signal.

None of this means the service is dead, it just means they have to pay the rebroadcast fees. Since they aren't notably cheaper than available locals only services in most if any markets I don't see them being terribly competitive once they pay the retransmission fees.

Correct, by streaming live TV, they were considered as a cable company and therefore fall under the retransmission rules that cable has to follow.
I don't know what Aereo plans are now, but they still can survive since it is a vehicle to watch on the computer or on a tablet since not all OTA broadcasters (independents) don't have the resources to offer streaming themselves.
And maybe this allows them to offer TV stations from other locations than just the area where the subscriber lives. So if a transplant from LA lives in San Antonio, they can watch the OTA station via Aereo that they may have like watching with living in LA. There are still possibilities I believe.

So, there we have it! The first big blow to the Cable companies. Free TV for all! A la carte is just around the corner and conference networks have a short half life!

Oh wait...reality strikes again. To those of us that understand the reality on the ground about institutions of power in this country, this comes as no surprise. You think there is any difference between the judgement in this case versus any other case where the status quo power structure is under assault? Wrong.

I don't see why this should be any surprise, or groundbreaking precedent. I'm not very technologically savvy, but this seems like a simple case of copyright infringement to me. Aereo tried to assert/exploit a technical loophole to pirate signals so they could sell them cheaply. SCOTUS didn't buy it. What am I missing?

(06-25-2014 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've not had time to read it yet but I had suspected that Aereo was a loser because they weren't truly an "antenna service", they transformed the signal. Rather than sending you the raw signal from the antenna, they were processing it and then streaming that converted signal.

None of this means the service is dead, it just means they have to pay the rebroadcast fees. Since they aren't notably cheaper than available locals only services in most if any markets I don't see them being terribly competitive once they pay the retransmission fees.

Unless they focus on rebroadcasting NFL games in the East into West Coast markets that don't rebroadcast locally.