Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service 210
An anonymous reader writes A day after a surprise U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw streaming TV service Aereo, U.S. broadcaster Fox has moved to use the ruling to clamp down on another internet TV service. Fox has cited Wednesday's ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against a service offered by Dish, America's third largest pay TV service, which streams live TV programming over the internet to its subscribers and allows them to copy programmes onto tablet computers for viewing outside the home.
Re:Big Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.
Some people would like to outlaw the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Difference (Score:4, Insightful)
They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.
Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.
Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
Re:Big Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
So I can fix my own house, but I can't pay anyone to fix it for me without paying 50% of the repair cost to the original builder. Sounds fair.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I know your first thought might be, well we're not going to use our military against Canada/France, but we have many other forms of coercion. We can and will forbid a particular financial institution to do business with US-based businesses and individuals, so that is the force that keeps them in line.
Wow, I wish you were right. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you're not. (For the record, I work for $MAJORCABLECOMPANY as an engineer in the group... well, under discussion. So I'm somewhat informed.) Case in point: the ability to use a song in a movie for theatric release is not the same as the ability to use the song when released on DVD. Likewise, songs played on the radio cannot (unless, of course, specified) be willy-nilly copied for downloads in podcats. The biggie, of course, is region-enforced blackouts for sporting events.
I could give more pertinent examples, but I also like my job, so I guess I'll have to take a pass. But trust me: it ain't as easy as you'd like to make it out.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
"How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???"
Empire. Rules of an empire. We've thousands of nukes, hundreds of military bases in a hundred+ counties, and we create every single "treaty" that governs our actions. You are either a vassal, or a cooperating and subordinate power.
Americans are fine with this idea. They never leave home much, and even if they did, they would not mind the hate. We are the fhining City on the Hill, the Nation Favoured by Providence, the people chosen by God Almighty to lead the world to a perfect age, so that Jesuf can come back, deftroy the world, hurl the unbelieverf and the wicked into the Pit of Fire for ever and ever and build a new Fhining City of Gold for uf, the chofen, to live with Jefus forever, along with perhaps a few foreigners who listened to the Holy Word of America.
If you don't understand the news coming from America, the above is THE explanation. You need no others; it is not hyperbole. And it will get so much worse.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
The US writes all the treaties. Amazing how that works.
Re:The Law of Intended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Those consequences were quite intended by the broadcast industry which sued Aereo. Only Scalia, amazingly, got it right when he warned they were after this endgame. Blind adherence to the tiny details of the law give us this stinking pile to live with, just as when they ruled that eternal copyright was fine as long as there was *some* time limit mentioned, even if it was a century, even if the limit would be eternally extended, as it just obviously had been.