"Millions of little antennas" is literally Aereo complying with the law. The law itself is insane, not Aereo. Something that I still don't understand wasn't brought up in that case.
You're right, though - although technically legal, it appears that "individual performance over the Internet" isn't possible, so no business built on that model can succeed... for now.
I'm sure that eventually the law will be... changed. Or ignored!
Although I hope Aereo wins, I don't have much hope for them. Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
The best strategy to take with the major broadcasters is to ignore them.
That is working wonderfully for the newpaper industry, right now. Ignore them and they will inevitably go away.
They can win all the battles they want, and lose the war due to their market dying off (literally, the people who still watch broadcast TV and read newspapers are all over 50 now).
What is interesting to me though, is a future battle - Cable TV vs The Internet, especially since Cable companies provide most of the Internet access in the US. That one is the one to pay attention to.
You bring up a good point, but it was already discussed in the article. The high prices that we choose to pay for expensive eBooks to to the publisher, not the author.
In exchange for more (or less!) expensive eBooks, the authors that you care about make... the exact same amount.
The Librarians that you also mention make... the exact same amount.
This is one of the rare cases where everyone (with the possible exception of a few Publisher employees) has a better outcome.
Well, I can see from the comments here, there, and other places that SCOTUS is getting some flack. As much as they deserve criticism (and boy do they ever for many things), this situation isn't one of them.
Patent Laws are written by.... Congress.
The SCOTUS doesn't want to, and indeed can't, rule on the total mess that the US patent law has going on now.
We need updated laws for that to happen in any way other than slowly, painfully, specifically, and over lots of time.
This isn't new or different. The Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. They don't Make New Law. That's not their job, that's Congress' job.
You're right that how much the Supreme Court does changes with the judges. If you're curious about this look up the term "judicial activism".
Try Harder! And see what happens...
There's really no downside here.
Either 1) The new expanded program doesn't work, and everyone is happy, or 2) It works great... and results in demand destruction.
Piracy or Doing Without - it's all up to the content owners which way they prefer to not make any money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your an idiot Kenichi
"Millions of little antennas" is literally Aereo complying with the law. The law itself is insane, not Aereo. Something that I still don't understand wasn't brought up in that case.
You're right, though - although technically legal, it appears that "individual performance over the Internet" isn't possible, so no business built on that model can succeed... for now.
I'm sure that eventually the law will be... changed. Or ignored!
Storm in a Teacup
Although I hope Aereo wins, I don't have much hope for them.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
The best strategy to take with the major broadcasters is to ignore them.
That is working wonderfully for the newpaper industry, right now. Ignore them and they will inevitably go away.
They can win all the battles they want, and lose the war due to their market dying off (literally, the people who still watch broadcast TV and read newspapers are all over 50 now).
What is interesting to me though, is a future battle - Cable TV vs The Internet, especially since Cable companies provide most of the Internet access in the US. That one is the one to pay attention to.
Broadcast Television? Just white noise.
How?
Eponia is superlegal. Likely extralegal. What court would he sue in?
Re:
You bring up a good point, but it was already discussed in the article. The high prices that we choose to pay for expensive eBooks to to the publisher, not the author.
In exchange for more (or less!) expensive eBooks, the authors that you care about make... the exact same amount.
The Librarians that you also mention make... the exact same amount.
This is one of the rare cases where everyone (with the possible exception of a few Publisher employees) has a better outcome.
This should be pretty obvious, but apparently...
Well, I can see from the comments here, there, and other places that SCOTUS is getting some flack. As much as they deserve criticism (and boy do they ever for many things), this situation isn't one of them.
Patent Laws are written by.... Congress.
The SCOTUS doesn't want to, and indeed can't, rule on the total mess that the US patent law has going on now.
We need updated laws for that to happen in any way other than slowly, painfully, specifically, and over lots of time.
Write to your congressperson... if you have one.
Re:
The best solution is to give the Objectivists what they want; to be sent away from the rest of society.
The problems with a philosophy are not obvious to those who subscribe to it until they experience it in isolation.
Re: Re: Why such narrow rulings?
This isn't new or different. The Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. They don't Make New Law. That's not their job, that's Congress' job.
You're right that how much the Supreme Court does changes with the judges. If you're curious about this look up the term "judicial activism".
"robbed of ability to make a living"?
I don't think that "making enough money to live on" is a right, although many music groups seem to feel that way.
Re: Not buying Dragon Age 3...
I'd like to play Mass Effect 3. I'll get it as soon as it shows up on Steam (or GoG, whichever comes first).
Too Little, Too Late
Demand Destruction. It's a thing.
I don't pirate, I don't care enough to. I'll start sending Hollywood money once content creators figure out this whole "Internet" thing.
It might end up coming down to generation change among content owners.