You might have missed it, but barring I believe one case(at most, it might be none, memory's a little spotty on it), Aereo has been found legal every single time it's found itself behind the table at a court-room, so it's fair to say that the litigation didn't ever get off the ground.
The only reason it's reached this point is that the companies trying to crush the new competition and/or set precedent they could use themselves have been willing to throw obscene amounts of money into case after case after case, likely attempting to bankrupt Aereo if they can't get it found illegal, similar to what they've done in the past with other companies/services.
...without Aereo compensating the cable companies for that content.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they're dealing with free, over the air content that was never going to be paid for by the recipient? /s
CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox ... every last one of them could switch to cable broadcasting and just abandon the public spectrums.
Oh noes, what ever could the public do with all that opened up spectrum to play around with...
Also, if they want to blow their foots off like that, let them, after all, what do you imagine the people paying them for advertising would do if they suddenly abandoned such a huge number of potential viewers out of nothing more than a childish urge to 'take their ball and go home'?
But, this is nothing more than Aereo taking your car out of your driveway, using it for free, and not compensating you for that.
Not even close. If we're going to compare Aereo to something, compare it to someone gathering up copies of a free newspaper, and distributing it to people who would otherwise not have been able to get it. Yes they might charge for delivering those copies, but they're charging for the time and money it took to get those copies to the customers, not for the newspapers themselves.
I wouldn't expect much from the various Bars or 'Ethics committees' they run, their first and primary drive is going to be to protect lawyers, any lawyers, and by that protect the profession, so the odds of them doing anything about Steele and co, like, say, revoking their licences, is probably pretty low, given how useless the Bar Associations are at protecting anyone but their own.
Now, a while back I did hear rumblings of the IRS looking into Prenda and co, and not the 'nice' part of that agency either, assuming that's true, it may take a while, but when the hammer does fall... ooh, it's going to be good.
So desperate to squash the information that's been released that he's even suing the state to (somehow) force it to be removed... even if the evidence 'proving' his corruption isn't true, you'd never be able to tell based upon his actions.
With a mindset like you seem to have, you seem to be exactly who the government as it stands loves, someone who does what they're ordered to, never questions, never thinks or asks themself, 'Am I doing what's best for the country and it's people, or just what's best for the government?'
'Harm the country', I keep hearing this, yet I have yet to see any evidence that what he's done has harmed the country, and in fact it looks like the direct opposite, his actions have helped the country, in pointing out abuse of government authority, the massive spying on the people, the intentional sabotage of security measures meant to protect people, and the whole-scale violation of people's rights.
No, the only 'harm' I've seen is against the secrecy the government has been so enamored with for so many years. Light is finally being shed on secret courts, passing secret rulings based upon secret laws, and government agencies flaunted the laws and Constitution like it was some sort of game, lying all the while to those who were supposed to be providing checks to their actions.
There is no such thing as 'too much harm' when it comes to such agencies and programs that show such utter and complete contempt for the people they are supposed to be representing and protecting, as they are an affront to the very concept of justice and true law, so if Snowden's actions lead to the destruction of such anti-american, anti-justice programs and practices, all I can say is, 'Good'.
Let's be perfectly clear here, the government is not the country, especially when they've reached the point where they consider the public the enemy, as they so clearly have.
With all due respect, those that support Snowden are those that oppose the United States.
On the contrary, those that support Snowden and what he's done support the country more than you ever will. They want to see it rid of such toxic 'secret courts' and 'secret laws', rid of such gross violations of the rights of the people, and see the country return to what it once stood for, what it should be able to stand for, a place where the rights of the people are held in the highest regard, not tossed into the gutter as soon as they become inconvenient.
Which means that he along with his concerns would have been buried. Yet another old man locked in the the concrete of "patriotism".
You missed the second half, the AC there is not agreeing with Clapper, they're pointing out yet another of Clapper's lies, that of 'if Snowden had gone to the proper people, things would have been fixed rather than buried'.
On the contrary, they wouldn't have any problems at all with FOSS hardware, all they'd need to do would be to 'add' a few bits and pieces, and suddenly all that careful 'security' goes right out the window.
After all, only terrorists would try and hide their activities from the government, so obviously anyone looking into encrypting their communications deserves that extra little bit of attention.
(And another iffy sarc mark. I don't mean or believe the above, though they certainly do)
Okay, I think I get where you're coming from now, you're saying that even if they charge them under the act, they don't want to actually put it to the test in court, so they'd withdraw those related charges before it reached that point.
I can somewhat see that, it's pretty much the core rot behind 'plea deals', charge them with everything, to get them to plea guilty for some of it.
However, in Snowden's case, I think you underestimate just how very much they hate him(do a little digging and you'll run across an article a while back where various government and contractor officials were basically fantasizing about killing the guy, anonymously but on record). The administration, spy agencies, and to at least an extent the whole government has found themselves with egg on their faces on a global scale due to his actions, so if any case would cause them to bring everything they could down on a person, his would be it.
Exactly so, the people who they consider 'enemies and potential terrorists', namely the public, are changing their behaviors in light of discovering just how eager agencies like the NSA are to spy on them.
Those that non-government people would consider terrorists have known, or strongly suspected, the spy agencies capabilities for years now, the only ones who are only now changing their behaviors are those too incompetent to be any real threat in the first place.
Ah, but how do you prove that what you've uploaded is 'lawfully licensed'?
Should the studios/broadcasters win here, then you can bet they'll push the filelockers to police what gets posted, to either make sure that everything uploaded does have that 'lawfully obtained license'(which would be impossible), or push the idea of forcing the filelockers to purchase 'licenses' of their own, 'just in case' something gets uploaded that might be infringing. Another 'you must be a pirate' tax basically.
Yup, you keep repeating that to yourself, and maybe one day it'll be true(hint: it won't).
Increasing numbers are 'cord cutting' not because they want cable but don't want to pay for it, but because they're seeing that what they get isn't worth the money they pay, so they no longer care enough about it to do so.
Piracy would be the better possibility in that case for the broadcasters(if people are pirating, that implies that they still care about the shows), as the real reason is that ex-customers just don't think the content is worth their time and money anymore, and are acting accordingly.