With your insults, you make it hard to say good point but I'll say it - good point. As far as it goes. you answered your own question about landlords with your parenthetical aside "(despite the law *specifically' allowing landlords to do so)." See there's a law for them, it's been made. Hulu Plus is another bad example because I think you know who owns them. I had read further that Aereo also transmitted Bloomberg, which was not just re-broadcast. I do not know whether they had the permission for that.
Aereo set up the antennas the way they did for a specific purpose and it was not to conform to the law. You're being willfully obtuse if you cannot admit that.
I have no love for large companies abusing powers. Quite the contrary. But I also have no love for small companies doing it either, playing the "I'm tiny and insignificant, what damage can I do card."
But Aereo failed. And even though the takeaway from a lot of people is that the Justices didn't take a look at the technology, a reading of the decision doesn't uphold that belief.
They DO have to follow the laws. But congrats for getting to the actual point of all this people don't like - the law itself, rather than the ruling. Which is what the SCOTUS ruling also stated - get the law changed if you ant your concerns addressed.
Nice. People seem to think because they want this X that the law should be X. But with so many people there would be a lot of different X desires - so there has to be a balance and rules. That's a society. Is the balance way off when you treat companies as people? - hell, yes.
For the purpose of this comment I will assume you were not being sarcastic. "but expecting payments to rights holders is bend the pale."
There's a lot of comments I wanted to respond to. This one is where I finally had enough. If someone has "rights" then it is that person's choice to cede them, temporarily. Rights are not maybes, they are rights. What's the point of being a holder of copyright if it is "beyond the pale" for people to respect them?
On a slight tangent, but the overall point of all this Aereo discussion comes down to a lot of people do not agree with the copyright law; because the merits of the SCOTUS decision are clear and correct.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by appleinaz.
Re: Re: Re: Re:rights holder
Cool. I wonder why no one else here hit this important point and the idea that people are pissed at the copyright law, not the SCOTUS decision.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rental
With your insults, you make it hard to say good point but I'll say it - good point. As far as it goes. you answered your own question about landlords with your parenthetical aside "(despite the law *specifically' allowing landlords to do so)." See there's a law for them, it's been made. Hulu Plus is another bad example because I think you know who owns them. I had read further that Aereo also transmitted Bloomberg, which was not just re-broadcast. I do not know whether they had the permission for that.
Aereo set up the antennas the way they did for a specific purpose and it was not to conform to the law. You're being willfully obtuse if you cannot admit that.
I have no love for large companies abusing powers. Quite the contrary. But I also have no love for small companies doing it either, playing the "I'm tiny and insignificant, what damage can I do card."
The ruling is sound.
But Aereo failed. And even though the takeaway from a lot of people is that the Justices didn't take a look at the technology, a reading of the decision doesn't uphold that belief.
Re: Re: Sell the equipment
Re: Big loss but also a big win for the future
They DO have to follow the laws. But congrats for getting to the actual point of all this people don't like - the law itself, rather than the ruling. Which is what the SCOTUS ruling also stated - get the law changed if you ant your concerns addressed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did subscribers get the content? Aereo owns the antennas if they are only being rented to subscribers.
Re: Dish actually does
It seems a lot of people are totally ignoring or missing this from the OP: > " albeit also in violation of an express contractual prohibition"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice. People seem to think because they want this X that the law should be X. But with so many people there would be a lot of different X desires - so there has to be a balance and rules. That's a society. Is the balance way off when you treat companies as people? - hell, yes.
Re: Re:rights holder
For the purpose of this comment I will assume you were not being sarcastic. "but expecting payments to rights holders is bend the pale."
There's a lot of comments I wanted to respond to. This one is where I finally had enough. If someone has "rights" then it is that person's choice to cede them, temporarily. Rights are not maybes, they are rights. What's the point of being a holder of copyright if it is "beyond the pale" for people to respect them?
On a slight tangent, but the overall point of all this Aereo discussion comes down to a lot of people do not agree with the copyright law; because the merits of the SCOTUS decision are clear and correct.