TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length
from the wherefore-art-thou-roamio dept
TiVo has released a new product called “Roamio” which looks suspiciously like the recently-declared-infringing Aereo. Roamio lets users “record, store and playback” over the air programming. Just like Aereo. There’s just one distinction — and it apparently makes all the difference in the world: Roamio’s cable length is a lot shorter. As David Post notes, while Aereo and Roamio’s services are nearly identical, the length of the cable changes the legal dynamic:
I?m pretty confident that the new TiVo box steers clear of any copyright problems ? not the first time, and probably not the last time, that our too-complex and illogical copyright law draws opposite conclusions when applied to functionally equivalent technology. The new Roamio is the precise analogue of the Sony Betamax ? just a box allowing customers to record that to which they already had free access, and to play those recordings back to themselves ? the distribution of which, the Court declared way back in 1984 in the seminal Sony v. Universal case, did not constitute copyright infringement. Aereo tried to make this argument (that it was just a Betamax dressed up in new technological garb) but failed ? in part because it was supplying not only the recording/playback capability, but the antenna itself, to customers. This seemed to be important to the Court, because it made it more difficult for Aereo to argue that it was just recording material the customer already ?owned?; no, the Court said, Aereo was actually going out and getting this content for the customer, and then recording it, which took it out from under the Sony no-infringement umbrella. More importantly, but sticking a separate box in each user?s home, TiVo avoids the charge that was fatal to Aereo, with its centralized facility: that it is ?publicly performing? the copyrighted programs in the OTA broadcasts. It?s close to impossible to argue that TiVo is somehow publicly performing copyrighted works by selling these boxes ? whatever ?performances? take place inside users? home are pretty clearly non-infringing ?private? performances.
In short — just as we’ve pointed out from the beginning — the only basis on which Aereo might be infringing is that the copyright law is different if you have a short cable between the antenna and your screen (TiVo) or a long cable (Aereo). It seems somewhat ridiculous that the length of the cable could possibly change the analysis of a copyright case, but welcome to today’s nonsensical copyright regime.
Of course, Post notes that the broadcasters still might try to sue anyway, and that does seem likely. Remember, they’re already suing DISH over its advanced DVR technologies. And the networks actually are trying to claim that the Aereo ruling helps them in that case (though it’s a very weak argument). So there’s a half decent chance they’ll sue Tivo over Roamio as well.
It seems fairly clear at this point: the broadcasters have decided that any innovation that lets the public watch TV in a better way must be an existential threat that should be sued out of existence. It’s felony interference with a business model, and tragically, copyright law seems to be the most popular and distorted tool for those claims.
Filed Under: broadcast tv, cable length, copyright, dvr, over the air tv, roamio, tv
Companies: aereo, tivo
Comments on “TiVo Releases A 'Legal' Version Of Aereo, Called Roamio, Proving That Aereo Really Was About Cable Length”
Actually it is worse. It’s about which cable is longer. Aereo provided a long HDMI cable that would send the images to the homes, Roamio is providing a long antenna cable. Is my understanding right? Is it that ridiculous?
And in the end it doesn’t matter if you have deep pockets to fight the legal battle. If the SCOTUS decide that you look like a duck then you are screwed regardless of how much you tried not to break the law. Let’s not mention that Aereo actually tried to play by the rules after it got shafted and the broadcasters still complained. Because at this point they stopped even pretending they care about the public.
” the broadcasters have decided that any innovation that lets the public watch TV in a better way must be an existential threat that should be sued out of existence.”
I don’t disagree, but I feel like it’s more that they are afraid of losing control. Losing control is the same to them as losing power. Losing power is the same to them as losing money.
Re: Re:
Actually, “Losing Power” is the same to them as DYING in their heads….
Re: Re:
Of course they fear they are losing control.
Unfortunately for them, the only way to stay in control would be to innovate the tv experience themselves, which they have now – again – made impossible in yet another way.
If they outlaw the innovations, they make these same innovations unavailable for themselves. And this is making ‘traditional’ tv more and more obsolete…
Not new capability
TiVo has had the capability (in some models) to record OTA broadcasts for a long time — since the very first TiVo devices. From Wikipedia:
The only real difference is that this box is much cheaper.
Re: Not new capability
Not just some: All (at least up until the digital changeover) Tivos could record OTA TV, if that was your video source.
As an early adopter (I would still be using a Tivo, if they could figure out how to get AT&T to toe the line and let them)
Re: Not new capability
Not only that, but the Roamios have been out for a while. I could be wrong—maybe an updated model was recently launched—but I’m pretty sure I’ve been reading about the Roamio for the better part of a year now.
Re: Not new capability
Originally all TiVo boxes had this capability; it’s been slowly phased out and is now only available on the entry-level unit. To differentiate further, Aereo essentially rented you the antennas, whereas with TiVo you connect your own.
So not that similar at all; only thing is that both can record off the air for later viewing – just like a 1976 VCR.
Point of the article is?
Re: Re: Not new capability
That technology marches backwards under the abuse of copywrong.
Re: Re: Not new capability
“To differentiate further, Aereo essentially rented you the antennas, whereas with TiVo you connect your own.”
So, if you connect a rented outside antenna to the TiVo does that make it illegal?
The more that they insist that people watch programs when they say, the more viewers they will lose to on demand services provided by Others. Amazon is a bigger existential threat to them than Tivo and Aereo, who at least were helping to keep their viewers.
Re: Re:
They don’t care if they keep their viewers though; they care if they keep their advertisers. And other than in-show placement (which is only useful for the US market, not for international syndication), offerings like TiVo’s will allow end users to skip the ads, meaning that not only can the syndicate not track viewing usage due to OTA, they can’t assure their advertisers that all OTA viewers are at least viewing their ads.
This was the big deal with Betamax; they just finished clawing it back with the move to digital, and now it is once again slipping through their fingers.
Re: Re: Re:
I remember having a VCR with automatic commercial-skip back in 1996. I don’t know if there were suits about it at the time, but it is hardly a new idea – the only difference is now you don’t see a short pause while it winds the tape.
Re: Re: Re:
Advertisers won’t give them money if they bleed viewers to other services, or from TV altogether. So it’s killing the (tarnished) golden goose either way. Just one way would allow them to breed a silver goose…
Hope there isn't a lawsuit, considering the qualitatively worse offering
The promise of Aereo was to allow access to OTA broadcasts for people with poor reception or no outside access to place a decent antenna. It was functionally equivalent to the basic idea of bottled water. If your local tap water tastes awful and ours is pretty great, then it makes commercial sense to bottle the good stuff and charge people for it. Tivo is just providing the bottles and letting you fill them from your own tap.
Re: Hope there isn't a lawsuit, considering the qualitatively worse offering
I thought the promise of Aereo was you could watch things on devices that didn’t have TV antennae, like phones and computers.
Re: Re: Hope there isn't a lawsuit, considering the qualitatively worse offering
I live in the Dallas area and I had Aereo, while it was in business, because I can not pick up OTA TV. Roamio will do nothing for me because I have no signal available to record.
Right or wrong, I believe it was right, Aereo was a good solution for me.
Re: Hope there isn't a lawsuit, considering the qualitatively worse offering
“The promise of Aereo was to allow access to OTA broadcasts for people with poor reception or no outside access to place a decent antenna.”
So what Aereo did was let people rent antennas in locations with better reception.
Roamio in a warehouse?
If someone were to put a bunch of Roamios in a warehouse and allow them to be remotely controlled by users across town… Would they still be legal?
Re: Roamio in a warehouse?
I think they would still be legal. Isn’t that essentially the Cablevision case?
In short — just as we’ve pointed out from the beginning — the only basis on which Aereo might be infringing is that the copyright law is different if you have a short cable between the antenna and your screen (TiVo) or a long cable (Aereo). It seems somewhat ridiculous that the length of the cable could possibly change the analysis of a copyright case, but welcome to today’s nonsensical copyright regime.
LOL! I love it when Mike plays the “length of the cord” card instead of, you know, actually engaging the actual law. There are significant differences between an independent set-top box like Roamio and an integrated web-based service like Aereo. Give me a break with the gross oversimplifications.
Re: Re:
No one will remember you when you die.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s just AJ, same troll, same tactics, different name.
Re: Re:
If you were actually interested in a rational discussion you would maybe, you know, talk about some of those “significant differences.”
But you’re not.
Re: Re: Re:
If you were actually interested in a rational discussion you would maybe, you know, talk about some of those “significant differences.”
But you’re not.
I’m happy to discuss the differences (while, sadly, Mike is not). For starters, with Aereo, there is a transmission from Aereo’s servers to the user. This transmission is a performance, and whether it’s a public performance turns on the Transmit Clause. There is no similar transmission from Roamio’s servers, and Roamio’s liability would not be determined under the Transmit Clause. It’s got nothing to do with the length of any cable.
You can have a cloud-based service on the other end of a very lengthy cable that is not publicly performing. You would think that Mike, in an effort to defend such services, would be careful to point out that liability does NOT turn on the length of the cable. Ironically, by arguing that it’s the cable length that matters, he’s condemning services that don’t even infringe.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“with Aereo, there is a transmission from Aereo’s servers to the user”
Yes. That would be the “cord” that Mike is referring to.
“It’s got nothing to do with the length of any cable.”
Of course it does. That’s the entire logical difference between the two setups. You haven’t explained why this isn’t true. In other words, what’s the difference between the “transmission” from Aereo’s antenna and the “transmission” from TiVo’s? They are both doing precisely the same thing.
“You can have a cloud-based service on the other end of a very lengthy cable that is not publicly performing.”
Neither Aereo nor TiVo was involving cloud-based services. I’m not sure what the point of your statement here is.
“would be careful to point out that liability does NOT turn on the length of the cable.”
Then what does it turn on? I seriously don’t understand how what TiVo is doing is different from Aereo, except in terms of how far away the antenna is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I seriously don’t understand how what TiVo is doing is different from Aereo, except in terms of how far away the antenna is.
The other difference is who owns the antenna. So do this thought experiment: imagine if Aereo rented you the antenna (and whatever else goes with it), but instead of keeping it at their facility, they install it at your home. However for the sake of argument, the signal from that antenna still comes to you via the internet. It goes from the antenna (at your house) to Aereo’s server (where nothing is done with the signal) then to your TV box, where it’s recorded or displayed.
Question 1: Would that be copyright infringement?
Now imagine the signal doesn’t go over the internet, and instead goes straight from the antenna to your box.
Question 2: Now would it be copyright infringement?
If the answer to the second question is yes, then it’s not about cable length but about a different stupid idea: that it’s important who owns the antenna. If the answer to 1 is yes, but 2 is no, then it’s about the length of cable. If the answer to both is no, then that just makes no sense given the Aereo ruling because then all that matters is physically where the antenna is. Clearly copyright law doesn’t care about that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Question 1: Yes, it is infringement, because the location of the antenna (length of wire) is not relevant. What is relevant is that the signal is received by Aereo and rebroadcast in a manner similar to a cable company.
Question 2: if the signal is not processed before it gets to the box you own (or control) and everything is in your home, then the answer is no.
The problem isn’t the signal on the internet itself, but rather that Aereo is processing that signal and redistributing it for you. If you do all of the steps for yourself at home (think slingbox) you won’t see the same issues.
A third party that charges a monthly fee and profits by re-transmitting OTA signals is a cable company. In order to “send it over the internet” they had to receive it and re-encode it. There are a lot of little pieces and parts that make them a cable company and not just an antenna provider.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
What is relevant is that the signal is received by Aereo and rebroadcast in a manner similar to a cable company.
… but not quite similar enough to qualify for compulsory licensing like a cable company.
Question 2: if the signal is not processed before it gets to the box you own (or control) and everything is in your home, then the answer is no. (emphasis mine)
Why does it matter if everything is in your own home? nasch’s first scenario specifically has the provider not processing the signal at all before it gets to the box. Why does it matter which cables the signal flows through before getting to the box?
The problem isn’t the signal on the internet itself, but rather that Aereo is processing that signal and redistributing it for you. If you do all of the steps for yourself at home (think slingbox) you won’t see the same issues.
What about if slingbox offered a slightly different service, where the slingbox itself was an ultra-low-voltage device that was simply able to perform an analog-to-digital conversion of the antenna’s signal, send that across the internet to slingbox’s cloud servers along with a desired channel number, receive the processed signal and send it up the HDMI cable to the TV?
Or a slightly different product, where the antenna plugs into a fully-capable slingbox, which then retransmits the signal inside your own home via some available spectrum (like Sonos does for music). Then you had multiple slingbox receivers, each connected to their own TV, which displays the re-broadcast signal. Note that this is presumably legal for Sonos.
There doesn’t seem to be any particularly good reason why any of these scenarios should be illegal under copyright. Which is kind of the point of all of these articles – showing why the law (as it currently seems to stand) doesn’t make sense and needs to be changed.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
What is relevant is that the signal is received by Aereo and rebroadcast in a manner similar to a cable company.
Not “rebroadcast”, rather “sent to you and only you”. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in number 1, the signal is transmitted to Aereo and back. Not stored, not broadcast, not manipulated, just transmitted. So now that you understand that (I hope), would 1 be infringing?
In order to “send it over the internet” they had to receive it and re-encode it.
No, I specifically said nothing was done to the data in my scenario, they just receive it and send it back out. Though I’m not aware of any “encoding” right defined by copyright law so I’m not sure why you mentioned it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
, the signal is transmitted to Aereo and back.
Exactly, they receive it, encode it, and rebroadcast it to you – ie, they are a cable company.
Though I’m not aware of any “encoding” right defined by copyright law so I’m not sure why you mentioned it.
The point is that the act of turning it from an OTA signal to a digital signal is a rebroadcast. That the antenna is on your house and the data then routed to Aereo (with no way for you to use it directly) wouldn’t change their legal standing one iota. The mere act of digitizing and sending it back to you is the issue – not the length of the wire.
Put another way: If you happen to live in the same building as the Aereo antennas, and they gave you service directly (ran a network cable right to you instead of using the internet) they would have the same legal issue – which is conversion of the signal and rebroadcasting it, even if it’s on a private network.
The length of the wire is unimportant.
Where the encoding happens doesn’t really matter either. The antenna on your house that is used exclusively by Aereo service (that you cannot use directly yourself without paying them a fee) puts them right back where they were before the injunction. The location of the antenna in the process isn’t relevant.
The question is control. An antenna that you control, that feeds an OTA signal to a VCR that is in your house that you own (or rent) and control independent of any third parties is legal. As soon as you start adding in remote this or digitized and retransitted that, you end up in the crap. The only way the cable companies get away with remote DVRs is that they are paying the copyright fees. Aereo could do exactly the same, they choose not to, likely because they would not be competitive if they did so.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Exactly, they receive it, encode it, and rebroadcast it to you – ie, they are a cable company.”
I do not think “broadcast” means what you think it means. If it is being sent to just one recipient then it is not being “broadcast”. “Broadcast” and “transmit” are not the same word.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I do not think “broadcast” means what you think it means. If it is being sent to just one recipient then it is not being “broadcast”. “Broadcast” and “transmit” are not the same word.
Precisely. I think it’s becoming clear that Whatever doesn’t want to have an honest debate about this because he keeps using the word “rebroadcast” after it’s been explained multiple times that that isn’t what’s happening. Either that or he’s just stupid, and I think the former is more likely.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
He also is ignoring the multiple times that digital information is tranformed before it gets to his ears.
Encrypt the bits is one tranformation, break the encrypted bits into packets is another, send the bits to the network
is another. Those may not be the entire sequence but they need eqivalent transformations for decoding at the receiving
end as well.
Then a final transform from digital to analog to drive the speaker and modulate the video.
So, how many “broadcasts” are in that sequence ? And when did a single point to single pont transfer, through however many transforms, become a “broadcast” ? (single source to multiple recipients)
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Then a final transform from digital to analog to drive the speaker and modulate the video.
So, how many “broadcasts” are in that sequence ?
Don’t forget the screen and speakers “broadcasting” the content to whoever is in the room. And then your retina broadcasts to your optic nerve…
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
The point is that the act of turning it from an OTA signal to a digital signal is a rebroadcast.
I sort of missed this one. Perhaps you honestly don’t know what broadcast means. That seems unlikely but I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Obviously rebroadcast means to broadcast again. Broadcast means to transmit a signal to a public audience. Note the root “broad”, as in wide, as in it goes out to everyone. Dictionaries tend to restrict the definition to publishing something via radio or television, but I think something can be a broadcast without being over radio or television. But the key feature is that it has wide public distribution. That is not true of Aereo’s actual operations, and it’s not true of the hypothetical situation I set up.
So let’s look at your statement again:
The point is that the act of turning it from an OTA signal to a digital signal is a rebroadcast.
First, you draw a false distinction. “OTA” doesn’t mean “analog” it means “over the air”, or broadcast. OTA can be digital. Second, converting a signal isn’t a broadcast, as you can see from my explanation above. One could convert a signal without broadcasting it, or broadcast a signal without converting it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yet when they attempted to use the same rates as cable companies
do both the Broadcasters and a judge said, “you are not a cable company so you cannot do that!”
You appear to be the only one who believes Aero could just “pay the standard fees”
and go about their business.
This fluidity and ambiguity will require lots more days in front of lots of judges.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“A third party that charges a monthly fee and profits by re-transmitting OTA signals is a cable company.”
No. While cable companies do engage in this activity, that is not the defining feature of a cable company at all. What makes a cable company a cable company has nothing to do with OTA signals.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Question 1: Would that be copyright infringement?”
It shouldn’t be.
“Question 2: Now would it be copyright infringement?”
It shouldn’t be.
The reason neither of them should be is because they are both just doing time/place shifting for a person who has the legal right to see the video. No unauthorized people see the content in the end as a result of either service, so no copyright violation.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The reason neither of them should be is because they are both just doing time/place shifting for a person who has the legal right to see the video.
Well I agree, but if you stick with the Aereo ruling, I would think 1 would have to be infringing too. Maybe trying to make sense of it is futile.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
True, the Aereo ruling takes an already crazy legal landscape and makes it crazier. That’s why I’m speaking in terms of what should be, rather than trying to guess at what the law says. The law couldn’t be less clear.
But yes, logically, the answer to both questions should be the same, whichever answer one prefers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So to summarize, length of the cord….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So…the length of the cord was a problem?
As noted in the article above?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
” For starters, with Aereo, there is a transmission from Aereo’s servers to the user. This transmission is a performance…”
As noted in the above 3 posts, you’re talking about the length of the cord.
The Roamio box sends a signal to the TV just as much as the Aereo service does. If you call one a “transmission” and the other “not”, then the only difference is the length of the cable. Both are sent from the unit to the TV. Both are controlled/selected by the user. Both are viewed only by the user (not sure if Aereo was multiple devices).
In short, everything is the same but the length of the cable. Not sure how anyone can spell it out better for you, but you contradicted yourself really well.
P.S. Mike shouldn’t be taking time out of his busy day to respond to every one of your points. You seem to think you’re God’s gift to this forum and deserve all the time and attention in the world. Start a legitimate discussion in the comments and I’m willing to bet people give you the time of day. Most articles posted have people on both sides (including suspending someone for writing about shooting a pet dinosaur) and legitmate claims can be stated. State them if you want to instead of just crying.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
As noted in the above 3 posts, you’re talking about the length of the cord.
The Roamio box sends a signal to the TV just as much as the Aereo service does. If you call one a “transmission” and the other “not”, then the only difference is the length of the cable. Both are sent from the unit to the TV. Both are controlled/selected by the user. Both are viewed only by the user (not sure if Aereo was multiple devices).
In short, everything is the same but the length of the cable. Not sure how anyone can spell it out better for you, but you contradicted yourself really well.
I said it’s a gross oversimplification to say that the cable length is all that matters, and that’s true. Yes, there is a transmission from the Roamio box to the television, but that is not a transmission from one place to another so the Transmit Clause is not implicated. Moreover, transmissions can be wireless such that there’s no cable length at all. And even when there is a transmission over a long cable, that doesn’t tell us whether the performance is public or private. You can have a private performance over a 10,000 mile long cable, and you can have a public performance with a wireless transmission that only goes 10,000 inches. The cable length, or even the existence of a cable, doesn’t tell us what we need to know to analysis the performance. And I simply disagree with you that Roamio, which supplies a set-top box that is functionally equivalent to a VCR, is doing the same thing as Aereo, which is functionally equivalent to a cable system.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“And I simply disagree with you that Roamio, which supplies a set-top box that is functionally equivalent to a VCR, is doing the same thing as Aereo, which is functionally equivalent to a cable system.”
Looking for a fact that leads to your opinion because I’m not sure how you arrived at this.
Aereo sets up an antenna for you to pick up freely broadcast matials. Then it gives you access to essentially a box (basically the functional equivilent of the Roamio) that can record the material you tell it to (from the FREE broadcasts). Then it sends that information directly to you (not broadcast to everyone) over the internet so you can watch it on your TV (or potentially other) device.
What part of that makes it a cable system? How does that not apply to the Roamio TiVo box?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Looking for a fact that leads to your opinion because I’m not sure how you arrived at this.
Aereo sets up an antenna for you to pick up freely broadcast matials. Then it gives you access to essentially a box (basically the functional equivilent of the Roamio) that can record the material you tell it to (from the FREE broadcasts). Then it sends that information directly to you (not broadcast to everyone) over the internet so you can watch it on your TV (or potentially other) device.
What part of that makes it a cable system? How does that not apply to the Roamio TiVo box?
I feel like Professor Post, Mike, and you are just trying to rehash the same argument (i.e., that Aereo is just like a VCR) that the Court rejected in Aereo. But Aereo is not simply a VCR. It’s an integrated service where people can sign up to have content transmitted to them over the internet. You can’t just look at Roamio and say it’s the same as Aereo because it lets people record and playback content. You have to look at the content as well. Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates content and transmits it to members of the public from its centralized facilities. Roamio doesn’t do that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates content and transmits it to members of the public from its centralized facilities. Roamio doesn’t do that.”
At leat now we have an argument.
That said, you’re still making the same argument that it’s about cable length for me. Here’s why:
Aereo set up a box for each person just like Roamio is doing. Each box ports only to 1 user just like Roamio is doing.
Your claim that “Aereo… tramsmits to the members of the public” is wrong in the way you use it. It transmits to 1 user, for 1 user and is no different in the logic of the design than the Roamio. Aereo never set it up so that the signal from each antenna would work any different than the Roamio box does. That’s how they thought they got around the Cablevision ruling.
In other words, the signal from Aereo is just as public of a signal as the Roamio (unless it’s broadcast, unencrypted, or some other way for a man in the middle to potentially piggyback on). Just because the signal from Aereo goes through the internet doesn’t automatically make it public. I mean does my online banking go to the public? Same difference.
Technologically, other than the cable length (Aereo being remote, Roamio being in the house) there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the 2 services. You still have yet to make an argument of anything but the cable length.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Aereo set up a box for each person just like Roamio is doing. Each box ports only to 1 user just like Roamio is doing.
The real issue is control, and how the signal arrives to the end user.
Roamio (horrible name) the user supplies the OTA signal and it is processed by the user owned equipment in their home. Once recorded, their choice in how to “share it with themselves” is all inside the Sony decision. It’s a VCR, plain and simple. No outside party is required to use the device.
Aereo? It’s a remote SERVICE, someone else owns and operates the equipment, and then streams the end result to you. Without the outside party and their transmission system, you would never get to see anything.
It’s all about control, ownership, and operation. The length of the wire has nothing to do with it. How can you tell? Simple: If you owned a property on either side of Boston, furthest points apart, you could record on your roamio in one place and play it back in the other if you so desired – and the length of the wire wouldn’t make one piece of difference. You could even record it in Boston and play it in your beach house is Miami.
THE LENGTH OF THE WIRE IS NOT MATERIAL.
Arguing that the Aereo case is about the length of the wire is to truly not understand the concepts of ownership, control, possession, and “service”. It’s one of the reasons why the coverage on Techdirt of the Aereo case has been so frustrating to read, as the focus has been intensely on something that that just isn’t key.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Aereo winning every court case except the last one, is more of an indication of corruption at the Supreme Court than that Aereo broke any laws.
You and your puppet masters are what is ruining America.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
THE LENGTH OF THE WIRE IS MATERIAL.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’d really like to see someone try to revive the Aero model but sell the box, antenna, and a strata title to a space in their datacentre (with the monthly charge being only for power and software updates[1]). That shifts the ownership back to the end user while maintaining the benefits of the Aero system.
[1] and perhaps a finance plan 🙂
Re: Re: Re:7 #48 Whatever - Re:
So playing a recording from a leased VCR (thanks, Aaron Rental!) is a public performance, even if the VCR sits in my rented apartment, inches from my rented TV, connected by a 36-inch 3-wire component connector? I don’t own any of the equipment, or the location in which the equipment sits. Someone else owns the equipment. I tell that equipment what and when to record (just like Aereo), but it’s all a service provided by someone else.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Roamio (horrible name) the user supplies the OTA signal and it is processed by the user owned equipment in their home.”
Oh, I see. So watching television programs on a rental TV is probably also illegal because the user does not own the equipment. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
not
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Aereo? It’s a remote SERVICE, someone else owns and operates the equipment, and then streams the end result to you”
No, the user operates the equipment. Aereo maintains and rents the equipment to the user.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
No, the user operates the equipment. Aereo maintains and rents the equipment to the user.
Exactly. Whatever either doesn’t know what he/she is talking about or is just trying to spread lies.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Why not both?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
At leat now we have an argument.
That said, you’re still making the same argument that it’s about cable length for me. Here’s why:
Aereo set up a box for each person just like Roamio is doing. Each box ports only to 1 user just like Roamio is doing.
Your claim that “Aereo… tramsmits to the members of the public” is wrong in the way you use it. It transmits to 1 user, for 1 user and is no different in the logic of the design than the Roamio. Aereo never set it up so that the signal from each antenna would work any different than the Roamio box does. That’s how they thought they got around the Cablevision ruling.
In other words, the signal from Aereo is just as public of a signal as the Roamio (unless it’s broadcast, unencrypted, or some other way for a man in the middle to potentially piggyback on). Just because the signal from Aereo goes through the internet doesn’t automatically make it public. I mean does my online banking go to the public? Same difference.
Technologically, other than the cable length (Aereo being remote, Roamio being in the house) there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between the 2 services. You still have yet to make an argument of anything but the cable length.
Thanks for the reply, and sorry for the delay in responding.
As the Court held in Aereo, the one-to-one thing doesn’t mean the performance is private. You also have to look at the relationship of the user to the content being transmitted. And this is why I think Mike’s cable length argument is silly. If liability turns on the length of the cable, many cloud-based storage services would be infringing. But they’re not. If I store an MP3 in the cloud and stream it back later, the performance that occurs when the content is transmitted is private because of my preexisting relationship to the content. This is so even if the cloud service is considered to be the one causing this performance.
The Court saw Aereo as providing more than just a piece of equipment (like a VCR) because it enables users to access content they have no preexisting relationship to. Like a cable system, it uses antennas to capture broadcasts and then retransmits those broadcasts to the public. Roamio does not use a centralized system where broadcasts are captured and retransmitted. And the content that the user records on Roamio is content the user has already acquired from the user’s own antenna. The content recorded with Aereo, by contrast, is content Aereo receives on its own antennas that is then forwarded to the user. So Roamio records content the user has already acquired in the first place, while Aereo records content the user has not yet acquired.
You may think this distinction doesn’t matter, but the fact is that the Supreme Court found it critical. And it seems to me that rather than pretending that liability turns on the length of the cable, Mike and others would be doing the services they care about a favor by pointing out that the cable length in fact doesn’t matter. If a cloud-based service was sued on the theory that it’s infringing because the cable is long, would Mike really get behind the plaintiff’s theory? I doubt it. He just plays the cable length card because he wants to make the decisions seem stupid. But I find it hard to believe that he really thinks the cable length thing is the law. It’s not. And that’s a good thing.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
He just plays the cable length card because he wants to make the decisions seem stupid.
Mike plays the cable length card to point out why the decision is stupid.
I was to install an antenna on my neighbour’s property (with their permission), and run a cable back to my property and use that to transmit the signal back to my house, would that cause an infringing public performance? What about if I translated the analog signal from the antenna while it’s still on my neighbour’s property to a digital signal before transmitting on the cable, to reduce transmission losses?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Mike plays the cable length card to point out why the decision is stupid.
I fear you’ve missed my point. Mike presents that cable length argument as if it were the actual law. It’s not. It doesn’t make the law look stupid because it doesn’t represent the actual law. Does Mike really think all cloud-based storage services are infringing because they use long cables? Highly doubtful. Yet he pretends like the cable length thing is all that matters. It’s not.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“Does Mike really think all cloud-based storage services are infringing because they use long cables?”
No, but plenty of people in your camp have made that argument.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Does Mike really think all cloud-based storage services are infringing because they use long cables?
If Aereo is infringing, what’s different about Dropbox?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
If Aereo is infringing, what’s different about Dropbox?
With Dropbox, the user has a preexisting relationship to the content. And despite the cable being very long, Dropbox is not publicly performing if someone streams something they’ve stored on Dropbox’s servers.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
With Dropbox, the user has a preexisting relationship to the content.
So you’re saying it’s legally different to record a show off your own antenna and upload it to dropbox than it is to rent an antenna from someone else, use it to record a show, and then stream that?
And despite the cable being very long, Dropbox is not publicly performing if someone streams something they’ve stored on Dropbox’s servers.
How is streaming from Aereo a public performance and streaming from dropbox isn’t?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“Mike presents that cable length argument as if it were the actual law.”
I don’t see where he did that. He’s making a legal-based counterargument, not saying what the current interpretation of the law is.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Aereo records content the user has not yet acquired”
It absolutely does not. Only content that has the user has acquired via their antenna can be recorded.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
As the Court held in Aereo, the one-to-one thing doesn’t mean the performance is private.
How does that make any sense? Sure wouldn’t fly at a strip club.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
How does that make any sense? Sure wouldn’t fly at a strip club.
Video on demand and YouTube, for example, use one-to-one transmissions, yet the performances are still public. The Court held that the public/private distinction turns on the user’s relationship to the content being streamed. And not that this HAS NOTHING TO DO with the cable length.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
The Court held that the public/private distinction turns on the user’s relationship to the content being streamed.
So whether it’s “public” has nothing to do with whether the content is available… how shall I put this… publicly. Seems like another case of the court deciding to rewrite the law to come up with the result they want.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates content and transmits it to members of the public from its centralized facilities.”
What do you mean by “aggregates content?” I don’t think that Aereo did that at all, but we may be using different definitions.
In any event, that’s not the definition of a cable company at all. If it were, then nearly every media-related thing is a cable company, including websites, physical magazines, etc.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I think he meant to say, Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates [other people’s video] content and transmits it to members of the public. Of course that would also make Youtube, Vimeo, Twitch, et al. cable companies as well. So maybe, Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates [other people’s video] content [without the rights holder’s permission] and transmits it to members of the public would work better. But that would turn a pirate streaming site into a cable company. It’s hard to come up with a categorization system for cable service that is jointly exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and uses a consistent principle [the three principles of logical categorization], that doesn’t outlaw a bunch of other stuff that few want to see outlawed, which is probably why the Supreme Court demurred.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’m not sure anyone on the pro-prosecution side is interested in an exhaustive non exclusive categorisation scheme that might limit their ability to wield copyright as a sword in the War Against Interference With Business Models.
Why is nobody thinking about the executives’ children?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I think he meant to say, Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates [other people’s video] content and transmits it to members of the public. Of course that would also make Youtube, Vimeo, Twitch, et al. cable companies as well. So maybe, Aereo is functionally equivalent to a cable system because it aggregates [other people’s video] content [without the rights holder’s permission] and transmits it to members of the public would work better. But that would turn a pirate streaming site into a cable company. It’s hard to come up with a categorization system for cable service that is jointly exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and uses a consistent principle [the three principles of logical categorization], that doesn’t outlaw a bunch of other stuff that few want to see outlawed, which is probably why the Supreme Court demurred.
Well, YouTube and the like don’t use antennas to capture broadcasts that are then retransmitted to members of the public, so I don’t think they are functionally equivalent to a cable system under Aereo. Nevertheless, YouTube and the like ARE publicly performing. Being functionally equivalent to a cable system is sufficient, but not necessary, to find that the service performs. And note that YouTube and the like are not “outlawed” even though they perform. They instead are protected by the DMCA safe harbors.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“but that is not a transmission from one place to another”
Yes, it is. All transmissions are from one place to another. In the case of TiVo, the two places are much closer together than with Aereo. So, again, it’s the length of the cord.
“transmissions can be wireless such that there’s no cable length at all”
You’re being much too literal with the word “cable”. That’s just shorthand for any communications channel that is logically equivalent.
” You can have a private performance over a 10,000 mile long cable, and you can have a public performance with a wireless transmission that only goes 10,000 inches.”
Absolutely true, and neither TiVo nor Aereo are “public performances” by any reasonable interpretation of the term.
“And I simply disagree with you that Roamio, which supplies a set-top box that is functionally equivalent to a VCR, is doing the same thing as Aereo, which is functionally equivalent to a cable system.”
Clearly, but you’ve yet to give a plausible reason why you think that. By the way, Aereo isn’t even close to being “functionally equivalent” to a cable system. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could think it is. There are a ton of critical, functional differences that make this so, but the easiest (and most important) is that a cable system engages in broadcasting (one-to-many) and Aereo does not (it’s one-to-one).
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Absolutely true, and neither TiVo nor Aereo are “public performances” by any reasonable interpretation of the term.
And yet the Supreme Court held that Aereo publicly performs.
By the way, Aereo isn’t even close to being “functionally equivalent” to a cable system.
And yet the Supreme Court held that Aereo performs because it is functionally equivalent to a cable system.
I’m hoping to keep this discussion to the actual law, not someone’s wishful-thinking version of it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“I’m hoping to keep this discussion to the actual law, not someone’s wishful-thinking version of it.”
You’re using a poor ruling by judges that were confused about the technology that was put into place. Just because they claim it’s a cable service doesn’t mean they fit the definition (functionality) of a cable service.
You can use the law all you want, but the point being made here is that FUNCTIONALLY the TiVo and Aereo are almost the same device (other than where the hardware resides).
Course just because the technology is functionally the same does not mean that it’s legal, it just means it SHOULD all be either legal or illegal.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You’re using a poor ruling by judges that were confused about the technology that was put into place. Just because they claim it’s a cable service doesn’t mean they fit the definition (functionality) of a cable service.
You can use the law all you want, but the point being made here is that FUNCTIONALLY the TiVo and Aereo are almost the same device (other than where the hardware resides).
Course just because the technology is functionally the same does not mean that it’s legal, it just means it SHOULD all be either legal or illegal.
The functionality is not the same. Aereo records content the user has not yet acquired. Roamio does not. This difference was central to the Court’s holding that Aereo performs publicly. You can try and brush it off as stupid judges not understanding things, but that holding is in fact the law of the land thanks to Aereo.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Aereo records content the user has not yet acquired. Roamio does not.”
But TiVo does, yet it’s legal.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And yet the Supreme Court held that Aereo publicly performs.
They were wrong. They’ve been wrong before, and it’ll happen again.
The only ones guilty of gross oversimplification is the Supreme Court when they handed down that decision.
I’m hoping to keep this discussion to the actual law,
So how about you actually cite the law that Aereo broke, and not the Supreme Court’s wishful thinking of it?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“I’m hoping to keep this discussion to the actual law, not someone’s wishful-thinking version of it.”
How about we have a discussion about how if the actual law thinks there’s a FUNCTIONAL difference between Aereo and Roamio then the law is clearly wrong and should be fixed. Is it wishful thinking that laws be able to stand up to basic logical comparisons? Or are we back to “the law is the law”?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m hoping to keep this discussion to the actual law, not someone’s wishful-thinking version of it.
You seem to be saying that something that is broken should be discussed as if it’s working well and/or functioning as originally intended. That’s rather short-sighted.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
what can you expect when Hollywood executives slide massive suitcase full of cash under the table?
You expect the jusdges to follow the law or to interpret it the way they were paid to
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
If it looks like a shill then it must be a shill.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“And yet the Supreme Court held that Aereo publicly performs.”
Yes, but the supreme court is wrong. I’m talking about what’s real, not what the Supreme Court says.
“I’m hoping to keep this discussion to the actual law”
I couldn’t care less about what the court has ruled. I’m talking about what’s right and reasonable.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yes, but the supreme court is wrong. I’m talking about what’s real, not what the Supreme Court says.
I couldn’t care less about what the court has ruled. I’m talking about what’s right and reasonable.
Well, that’s the problem. I want to talk about the actual law because, legally speaking, that’s what’s real. You want to talk about what you think is “real,” that is, what you think the law should be even though it’s not actually the law. I’m not interested in discussing that.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“You want to talk about what you think is “real,””
I love the scare quotes you put around “real,” even though you prefer to discuss fiction (the law) rather than the underlying principles (what is real).
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“I want to talk about the actual law because, legally speaking, that’s what’s real.”
Oh, well if you want go with “whatever a court says is reality” then I suppose you believe all sorts of nutty things, such as that the universe revolves around the earth and that witches should be burned at the stake. I imagine that others can probably come up other, nuttier things that you must believe based on your admission that you believe that whatever a court says is reality.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Others, and I, are asking you to clarify how we can learn what makes two apparently functional eqivalents fall on different sides of the law.
Do not just repeat the same phrases again. Elucidate and educate please.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, seems all your efforts went into that shiny Avatar of yours, cause there was obviously nothing left for a coherent argument. Kudos!
Re: Re:
Soooo… what are those differences then, lol’ing smart person?
Re: Re:
So TAM goes back to a smartass account, like it makes any difference. It won’t last. He’ll be back to spamming “just hates it” on every post before you know it.
That the length-of-the-cable makes a difference doesn’t surprise me. Remember how cable television got started? Some enterprising individual put up a big antenna on the hill and split the cable among the people in the town below. In that case, it was the number of people connecting to the antenna that made the difference.
If the length of the cable doesn’t matter, then maybe the number of people connected to a single antenna shouldn’t matter either. If so, then no cable company anywhere should be paying retransmission fees.
Re: Re:
“If the length of the cable doesn’t matter, then maybe the number of people connected to a single antenna shouldn’t matter either. If so, then no cable company anywhere should be paying retransmission fees.”
Agreed. The first cable company that paid a fee to “directly” connect, instead of using an antenna, dragged us all down a slippery slope.
Re: Re: Re:
Those early cable systems didn’t have a choice. The FCC set the rules and the Supreme Court upheld them.
I think this is why Aereo lost. It looks like cable tv, acts like cable tv, so the Supremes said it should be treated like cable tv.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’d like to add that I suspect Aereo may have been planning on losing all along. Since the court case they have started to argue that they are a cable tv service and should get the same deal from broadcasters that traditional cable companies have gotten rather than higher rates because “internet”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then they need to be completely treated like a cable service, including being able to pay those mandated retransmission fees.
Essentially, along with a ridiculous ‘seems like’ test, the Supremes have made up a completly different, non-legislated for service class for Aereo purely so that the content dealers can continue to trash its service.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Essentially, along with a ridiculous ‘seems like’ test, the Supremes have made up a completly different, non-legislated for service class for Aereo purely so that the content dealers can continue to trash its service.
Kind of like they made up the copyright inducement law so they could shut down file sharing networks.
Now it’s TiVo’s turn to get shoved under the Supreme Bus of Courtitude!
It's not just the cable
I’m generally against copyright and for Aereo but suggesting the difference between Aereo and a local recording box is merely cable length is simple-minded at best.
Yes the internet is effectively a wire but on the other end is a paid service, not just an antenna. They’re receiving, transcoding and transmitting digital video, not just piping RF signals down copper.
They knew they were on shaky ground, they played their hand, they lost. It sucks but c’est la vie. This was never a way to bring about copyright reform.
Re: It's not just the cable
“They’re receiving, transcoding and transmitting digital video, not just piping RF signals down copper.”
I’m not seeing how that’s an important difference. It’s just a difference in the encoding scheme used, not one that is actually meaningful in any way.
Re: Re: It's not just the cable
What about those houses with fiber, do they need yet another set of rules ?
Re: It's not just the cable
Yes the internet is effectively a wire but on the other end is a paid service, not just an antenna. They’re receiving, transcoding and transmitting digital video, not just piping RF signals down copper.
But so is TiVo. How do you think the media is saved and replayed?
Re: It's not just the cable
Can you show that the transcoding and transmitting cause harm? Or are they just value-added services?
Re: It's not just the cable
So a channel using pidgeons instead of bits would be subject to yet another set of laws ?
How about one using different colored fluids ?
Why should we need different laws for every medium ?
I think it’s all about the antennae for aereo. This is really just a VCR and falls right in line with the Sony decision years ago.
Re: Re:
that is because you are a short sighted idiot who only cares that copyright is maximalised
techdirt argues that the length of the cord is the difference and antidirt agrees and pretends to disagree. Awesome
Seeing as the length of the cord is all that matters. I guess America will never get internet TV, because the internet is a REALLY long cord.
Former Aereo Customer Here
Been looking for an Aereo replacement since the Utah court ruling in the spring. I’ve looked at Tivo, but it’s monthly service cost is higher than Aereo’s, which is overpriced IMO.
I decided to go with newcomer Tablo (www.tablotv.com). It’s a more expensive box ($199 or $299) but the $4.99/month subscription is optional and better priced. Overall I think it is a bit more capable and extendable. I can watch live TV on multiple devices without an additional piece of hardware. I can control it via the web rather than another remote. To me, it’s more Aereo than Tivo. But we’ll see when it arrives tomorrow.
Either way, it’s still ridiculous that I can have either device in my home and that’s OK. I could build my own and that’s OK. But if I pay someone else to manage it for me “in the cloud”, it’s illegal.
How much did Tivo have to pay Dish for their tech?
Considering that what they’ve done is incorporated Dish’s Sling technology, whether they call it that or not, i’m sure that if they didn’t license the tech from Dish, that it won’t last long.
this is dumb
This is the dumbest thing ive ever read. The author has missed the mark so far on what aero is, what tivo is, pretty much on everything. Mind numbingly dumb.