[Ron Bello]

What has not been mentioned in this discussion is that cable companies
substitute commercials that they have sold for those contained in the
original transmission from the local TV channels.  This revenue shift does
not happen with the Aereo system.



On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Martin Waters via Boston-Radio-Interest <
boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org> wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Martin Waters <martinjwaters@yahoo.com>
> To: "Gary's Ice Cream" <gary@garysicecream.com>, "'Shawn Mamros'" <
> mamros@MIT.EDU>
> Cc: Boston Radio Group <boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org>
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 19:49:10 -0700
> Subject: Re: Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today
> Gary wrote:
> >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.
>
> Shawn wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>