The big difference is that a cable company runs cable directly from their CO to your house. That cable is theirs and it's their responsibility to maintain. Aereo uses the internet and they are only responsible for the connection up to their ISP. They are not a cable company, they are a web service. If Aereo is a cable company, then so is YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, and any other web service that is capable of rebroadcasting recorded content.
Millions lost? That rather suspect since they only have that money because the government made it mandatory. Broadcasters would never have lost anything by letting cable rebroadcast for free, the only loss in this situation is the loss of the government handout created by a law mandating licenses for rebroadcasting.
Also, it's quite a stretch to say that Aereo was "reselling" content. They were providing a service that made what was broadcast for free accessible to those in the coverage area, but are unable to receive a signal. That's like reflecting sunlight at those that are trapped in a dark room. Saying they were reselling it is a semantic obfuscation. By your reasoning, selling bottled water should not be allowed. After all, you're reselling water. Oh, I know what you're going to say. You pay for the water you use! So, that makes it different, how? We pay for broadcast television by watching ads. The broadcasters want to be paid and advertisers want eyeballs. It seems like they are trying to milk both ends of the deal. Gee, that sounds a lot like the net neutrality debate! FOX is the ISP, the advertisers are the customers, and Aereo is the web service that enhances the value of the ISP. FOX wants both the customers (i.e. advertisers) and the value-added services (Aereo) to both pay FOX for the two to work together.
This is nothing but an irrational belief. The only reason there's money in licensing this kind of thing is because the law made it happen. That doesn't make it right. That just means that NBC and their ilk can claim a cut of Aereo's revenue for no other reason than that they are making money on it.
Aereo isn't harming broadcasters' business, but, somehow, making money from another person's work is the highest crime of all despite that it doesn't harm the market or brand of the originator. It costs FOX/NBC/ABC etc. nothing to allow Aereo to continue. It only means that they can't put their hands in the Aereo cookie jar. That's what this whole licensing scheme is about, putting their hands in others' bank accounts, even though they lose nothing in the absence of such licenses.
So, go ahead and continue with your special pleading. I know you will.
Re: Ratings Systems - The Gateway Drug to Censorship
Parent's shouldn't have to adapt to the world, the world should have to adapt to them so they can go on their way pretending that sex, drugs, violence, and evolution don't exist. It's hard to be a responsible parent when the government isn't doing the job for them.
Perish the thought that they might actually talk to their children and try to give a rational explanation why they object to certain sources of entertainment.
They shouldn't have to help their child understand why one thing is appropriate and the other is not, because they don't know either. They just mindlessly parrot the same brainwashing they were told as children.
"The Supreme Court ruling on Aereo was the correct one. This was a company who was stealing media content from the licensed authorized broadcaster and tried to profit off content created by others."
Stealing: You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Aereo was violating copyright laws by selling access to watch TV shows online without licensing that content from the broadcasters."
No, they were providing a DVR to each customer with a really long cable.
"It doesn't matter what argument anyone comes up with, violating copyright is simply not permitted in this country. Otherwise, torrent sites would have a legitimate argument to push back against the MPAA and RIAA and be able to profit from sharing torrents."
Translation: It doesn't matter what argument anyone comes up with, I've made up my mind and I refuse to listen to any rational, factual argument that is contrary to my opinion. Despite that, I'll say this anyway:
Torrent sites do have a legitimate argument to push back against the MPAA/RIAA. They are search engines that provide files that contain links to the actual hosts with specific content. They host no content of their own, just links. How long will it take to get it through people's heads that the "content theft" they rant about comes from the people that use torrent sites and not the torrent sites themselves? You might as well put Stanley Tools on trial every time people are murdered with one of their hammers.
Let me make this explicitly clear so that anybody with an IQ above room temperature can parse it: Bittorrent is a tool and torrent sites are a tool. Blaming the tool rather than the people that misused it is a special kind of stupid.
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
If selling copies was the only way to make a living in content, you'd be right. However, it is not even remotely close to being the only option. Creating content is a skill, and a skill can be sold as a service. The only thing that will be "destroyed" is the power to control access to content indefinitely as a means to extracting perpetual revenue from something created with a finite amount of labor.
In truth, we can have it both ways. Content as a business thrived long before copyright appeared and it will continue to do so long after copyright ceases to exist.
You can't fix a house while its foundation is crumbling.
Which is why I wish we could just scrap copyright in its entirety. The industry doesn't need copyright, and if you think it does, you should get your head checked. Yank the rug from under them and tell them to go find another business model. They don't get to use the law to externalize risk at the expense of the public welfare.
It makes sense to do what they're doing. You can't create a new market while being immensely obscure. You need to expand adoption so that the positive feedback loop of innovation can build that market for you. The best innovators get the competition to build on their innovations and create a foundation for more innovation.
I wouldn't want that. It puts the server as the mercy of clients. It would make bit-torrent completely infeasible because you could be serving 1000 leechers, but only connection to 10 seeders. It would encourage everyone to leech and discourage them from seeding.
No, that entire argument is an equivocation. Comcast is charging two parties (subscribers and Netflix) for the exact same service. Comcast customers are already paying Comcast for the bandwidth for the purpose of accessing sites like Netflix. What's more, Comcast is degrading service purposely to make Netflix lose business and make the customers' experience poorer. That's flat-out extortion.
The Fed Ex analogy applies. Would you want Fed Ex to delay the delivery you paid for because Amazon didn't give them a kickback to not delay it? What if Fed Ex was making it look like the delay was Amazon's fault rather than Fed Ex purposely delaying it?
You pay Netflix and they pay Cogent to deliver your stream to Comcast. You also pay Comcast to deliver it the rest of the way to your PC. So, you're paying Netflix, Cogent, and Comcast for that video stream. Comcast wants Netflix to pay for what you've already paid Comcast to do!
What Comcast is trying to do is like Fed Ex charging you and Amazon to deliver your purchase. That's double dipping. In the end, the customers end up paying twice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
"The whole point was to show a case where the current law would protect against this action and your interpretation of the law would leave no recourse."
Your example was a red herring. Your point was that "I should have the right to take down my content when it's used in ways I don't agree with!" My point was, that if it's fair use, it doesn't matter one bit how much you hate it nor how evil it is. Even if the site is used for criminal things, you have no right to take content down simply because it offends you.
"Why can't they be both? It is not sad, I am not alone in this view because that is what the law states."
It can't be both because copyright is supposed to promote the progress, not hamstring it with a rusty spoon just to grant a concession to marketing concerns.
"No, content doesn't have to be a product, but there is nothing wrong with content being a product."
Yes, there is something wrong with it. You're trying to sell a product that is infinite in supply, inconsequential to duplicate, and trivial to distribute, and it's being built on the collective wealth of human culture, without investing the same resources it took to create the work in the first place. Selling a book, a song, or a movie is like trying to sell boxed air.