Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today
Sun Jun 29 22:49:10 EDT 2014
>The customer has the channel changing capability of their
own tuner at the data center so basically it is a remote tuner for your tv.
That is just what cable and satellite TV provide.
>It's just that Congress back then decided the broadcasters should get a cut >from the pie. I'm not sure that was the right decision then (or now), but that's >the law that was made. If Aereo shouldn't have to pay broadcasters for
>retransmission, the cable companies shouldn't either.
I am sure that Congress made the right decision. The creators of intellectual property and the companies that buy the programs, sell the advertising that pays for them and all the rest, deserve to be paid when some utility company comes along and wants to grab their output in an attempt to make a profit.
What is it about the internet that appears to make more and more people think otherwise? It happened before with music. Aereo was merely a cynical scam to get around the copyright law. Sure, the company said every viewer was connected to an individual antenna. But Aereo provided the antenna, received the signal and retransmitted it over the internet. Case closed.
Luckily the Supreme Court wasn't fooled. If the copyright law of 1976 needs to be changed, it is to strengthen it on behalf of the creators of content due to advancements in technology. Now, I would like to know what's going to be done to collect the royalties Aereo should have been paying. Plus, the battle goes on, as there appears to be no end to people with a new trick and a desire to make money from someone else's creative work without paying for it.
I'm surprised that some broadcast people would look at Aereo as anything but a sleazy effort to find a loophole in the copyright law and steal content. Content is everything. Let us not weep for the Aereo people. Maybe now they can all get jobs developing the next brilliant TV show or movie. But I doubt it.
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest