Mon Jun 30 11:14:31 EDT 2014
Feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure cable/satellite systems
don't/can't do spot inserts over broadcast/OTA channels.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Ron Bello <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Martin Waters <email@example.com>
> > To: "Gary's Ice Cream" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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