Content Theft In The Big Leagues
 

News Corp to Take Fox Off Air If Courts Back Aereo Service

From the article...

?We need to be able to be fairly compensated for our content,? Carey said. ?This is not an ideal path we look to pursue, but we can?t sit idly by and let an entity steal our signal. We will move to a subscription model if that?s our only recourse.?

Story here...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-aereo-1-.html

Unless I'm reading wrong, Aereo can now capture their feeds, charge customers to access their website and not pay anything for the content? How in the fuck did the courts come to that conclusion? That is insane!!! :321GFY

they got paid?

In the adult industry this is now called "innovation."

They got tubed?

Ok, this one is weird on multiple levels...

First off, since nobody seems to get what they are doing, here is an explanation:

In the US, for example in NYC, there are certain TV stations broadcast via radiowaves. Like in the good old days. Anyone with an antenna on their roof or on the TV can access these. 100% Free. This I think is clear to everyone...

What Aereo now does, is rather simple... Instead of you having an antenna on your roof or TV, they have one for you in a datacenter. You create an account, you login via an App on your phone or ipad or such, and access that antenna and watch TV. Just like you would on your TV connected to an antenna.

Obviously I realize most people here just know cable boxes and stuff, but that does not change the fact that the above free way of receiving TV exists.

On top of this, the apps also allow for recording a TV show, just like you would with a DVR at home, or a VCR back in the day. Just instead they store it on a storage somewhere external, not local. But its still you that recorded it.

Now, the parts I do not fully understand are:
1) It sounds like right now this only exists in NYC. I am guessing somehow the logic here is that to make this 100% legal, you have to be in NYC to receive NYC antenna TV.
2) It literrally sounds like they have thousands of antennas in datacenters in NYC. So that literally one account gets one antenna. Can someone here explains if this is some kind of legal logic? It seems overkill? In a big apartment building you also only have one antenna on the roof and connect all appartments to that one antenna, no? Not sure how this work(s/ed) in the US.
3) The DVR system, I would guess, is like a DVR at home. Which means. If you MISS recording a show, you CAN NOT do it after the fact. Meaning, if The Simpsons start at 5pm EST, and you tune in at 5:10pm, you can nolonger record from 5pm on, only from 5:10pm of course. Thus it is a PERSONAL DVR. Hard to argue this is illegal unless you think a DVR is illegal in general. I am sure you can also not watch shows recorded by others.

its NOT THEFT. Aereo allows you to BUY/RENT your OWN antenna and capture PUBLIC broadcasts. Its legal, brilliant and AWESOME!

I remember reading about a few months ago and legally they have to have one antenna per customer.

If FOX follows through with its threat, and other networks follow Fox, it means Free Digital TV is done, over. Or, FREE Digital TV will be filled with unwatchable crap until it dies completely.

There is a similar fight going on in Japan where the national broadcaster, NHK has been trying to force people to pay. You move in and they show up within a week, demanding payment for the signal. Most people are telling them to shove it sideways. Viewership is waning, lol.

So who wins? Murdoch or Diller? The rub is if FOX and other networks allow Aereo to have free service, Fox fees to cable will be in jeopardy. I doubt cable networks/satellite et al will agree to pay royalties for something somebody else is getting for free. According to article, FOX made 472 million last year. It'll be a nasty summer.

That's where you come in right? :upsidedow

You can't repurpose content that does not belong to you, it would be like someone setting up a bot to act like a browser on a porn site and letting everyone else in the world view the content for a fee.

It's not brilliant, it's copyright infringement.

These cases will come about more and more often as people look for ways to monetize content they do not have any right to.

If the original advertisement is still show in the content, I don't see the problem.

Its clearly a product in demand, so why don't News Corp just build their own service, and let people watch it online for a small fee?