Feds Now Oppose Aereo, Rejecting Cloud Apocalypse Argument 140
v3rgEz writes "TV streaming service Aereo expected broadcasters would put up a fight. The startup may not have seen the Justice Department as a threat, however. The Justice Department has now weighed in, saying in a filing that it's siding with major broadcasters who accuse Aereo of stealing TV content. In its filing, the Justice Department noted it doesn't believe a win for broadcasters would dismantle the precedent that created the cloud computing industry, as Aereo has previously claimed. The case is expected to go before the Supreme Court in late April."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As I have watched about 1 hour of TV over the past 10 years, I'm non-plussed. I have always felt the broadcasters were allowed to run roughshod over the public, with plenty of help from the federal government. It's a new century, can we start looking beyond 20th century business models, yet?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry. XKCD [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I own one, I just can't be bothered to turn it on and watch anything on it.
There's much more entertaining and mentally stimulating content on the interwebs [youtube.com], anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
you are so 2000 and late
Re:... and nothing of value was lost [nt] (Score:5, Insightful)
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own a TV. [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Shit. Beaten out by refresh!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you people would stop talking about TV and the shit you watch, you wouldn't hear anyone tell you that they don't watch TV.
That's about the size of it. Where I work most people watch a few shows and avidly follow one or two. The subject of shows or even commercials they have found entertaining pop up occasionally and I just gently remind them I don't watch TV. I just haven't been interested and watching most shows I find a trying experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't watch any TV bar the odd news bulletin for years
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of degree. For any given concert, sporting event, opera, etc., there's no real expectation that I attended it. There is an expectation that I have television reception, so I wind up mentioning it now and then. There is indeed some excellent TV, but I generally find that isn't what I'm watching with TV reception available. My wife and I find it generally better for ourselves to not have easy reception. I don't know what's better for you.
Re: (Score:1)
CHAPEL HILL, NC–Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers–as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.
Jonathan Green, who tells as many people as possible that he is "fully weaned off the glass teat."
"I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than watch television," Green told a random woman Monday at the Suds '
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It largely depends on choices. I live where internet is dial up only at 26.4KBs (no cell service either) and especially for the wife when the last couple of TV stations went digital and therefore no longer receivable it was quite the bummer.
The 8 track was replaced by something as easy to acquire and the same cost while being an improvement. TV has disappeared for many on the fringes and only has a decent replacement for some and is much more expensive. One time cost for a TV ($10 at the thrift store) plus
Re: (Score:2)
Those still work, if you add the one time cost for a digital-to-analog converter box ($40, or $0 back when they had the vouchers). Contrary to popular belief, there's not anything special about digital TV as far as antennas are concerned, except that fewer channels are on VHF.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital really doesn't carry as far as analog, at least in mountainous terrain, especially now that there are no low band VHF channels. Bought a converter when the switch happened, tested and returned it. Tried again when the last VHF repeater went off the air and same thing. (before we didn't realize there was a repeater in the opposite direction)
Re: (Score:2)
Trees and mountains block the satellites currently
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the stats show the exact opposite of your anecdotal experience. Younger people are MORE likely to use an OTA antenna than older people. Poor people are always disproportionately represented, but they're absolutely not the only group where OTA viewership is growing.
"The number of households relying on OT
Sports (Score:2)
It is funny how the
But when it comes to sports, we are supposed to...watch it on DVD? Or via some LoQ YouTube put out at some random time in the future?
Where is the consistency?
Plus, ever try to watch sports when you know the result? Or try to avoid learning the result for a day while you wait for it to be put up online?
Also, as soon as
Just Sad (Score:1)
My 6 year old is sad we can't record broadcast TV through aereo anymore (living in the Utah/Denver area where it got shut down). When you're paying for aereo, you are mainly paying for a tv guide service, $8/month. In our case we had already been watching only broadcast TV for a year and wanted a nice DVR service without paying for TiVO antenna DVR which was overpriced... $15/month for tv guide service.
Anyone know how to build a small MythTV box? Main consideration is TV/Antenna card in a small form fact
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look into vdr instead. It's not as flashy but it was very stable years ago. In my opinion it's as a DVR should be.
Re:Just Sad (Score:5, Informative)
A Series 3 platform TiVo would let you record digital OTA for $12.95 per month maxium, but that figure is for the entire TiVo service which includes a license to use the software as well as the guide info, and they've always sold the hardware cheap with the idea of making up the loss on selling the service.
In fact, you can probably pick up a used S3 or S3 HD or HD XL with Product Lifetime Service for $300 or less (check area Craigslists), then another $100 for a 2TB WD20EURS to slip into it and $10 -$15 for Low ESR 105 degree rated capacitors to replace the ones in the power supply pro-actively, and the only monthly cost will be the electricity.
Lurk at tivocommunity.com for a while.
You'll also find discussion of Myth and WMC there as well.
When you're paying for Aereo, you're paying as much as anything to have somebody else worry about providing you with an outdoor antenna.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone ever bother with Tivo?
eMatic/iView/HomeWorx/ViewTV sell $30-60 "Digital converter boxes" with USB ports. Plug in a portable USB hard drive (most support up to 3TB) and you can record any TV shows you want in 1080i, time-shift the current program, watch any of the sub-channels on the channel you're recording, connect the drive to your computer and watch/edit/reencode them there, etc. Under $100 total for 1
Re: (Score:2)
The antenna question and the some DVR other than a TiVo question are two separate issues.
Although the TiVos I mentioned do offer the flexibility of OTA or cable or both, with the ability to record two programs simultaneously while watching a third while also copying a previously recorded show from another TiVo on the same account or from a PC.
Re: (Score:1)
I never suggested MythTv. The brands of boxes I listed are consumer electronics appliances, NOT COMPUTERS.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats the whole reason the networks are fighting Aereo so much, everyone who uses Aereo to get OTA TV is (as far as they are concerned) one less person paying Comcast or Time Warner or whoever else for that same TV. And therefore its one less person paying x amount per month (via their cable provider) to the networks. (i.e. Aereo = lost revenue)
Re: (Score:2)
If you rent a house, or otherwise have any exclusive-use space (eg. in a single-story rental, you're free to stick an antenna on the roof, if you don't damage the building doing so). I've found that chimney-mount straps work quite well for holding an antenna mast to a roof-top central-air condenser unit... Alternatively, a tripod and some guy wires can do the job quite well.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks, but I would seriously rather just rent the antenna from aereo and skip the installation costs and hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Install a TV tuner card and record it yourself. Media Center is the main reason I have a Windows 7 machine in the house, for this very purpose. Set it to record whatever you want and it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Media Center's primary benefit is a high Wife Acceptance Factor. It's polished well, and that goes a long way.
If you want OTA and WMC, I suggest some Hauppauge cards -- enough to satisfy your need to record multiple channels at once during sweeps without conflicts. Perhaps: http://www.hauppauge.com/site/... [hauppauge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
High WAF with my MythTV solution yielded carte blanche on my computer purchases. She actually told me to "go get a Mac" to replace my original cobbled together frontend box.
We were a Tivo household before that. So it's not like there were low expectations.
However, the main challenge with OTA is the ANTENNA. That is the trickiest part by far and the one that frustrates so many people into using cable or Aereo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ANYTHING which has ever been broadcast should have lost copyright - that the price for building your business on public resources.
Re: (Score:2)
If only locals are receiving a station's broadcast, what's the theft? The "Cablevision remote DVR" case seems t
Those with the money (Score:3)
Get to make the rules. Yet another example.
That's why they call it... (Score:3)
The Golden Rule. Those with the gold get to make the rules.
Re: (Score:1)
Your basic grasp of 80 year old copyright law has no place here. Please get on board with the "Big Evil Government hates innovation" party line. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re:Those with the money (Score:5, Insightful)
80 year old WHAT?
what could any 80 year old law possibly have to do with modern nuances of virtual, cloud, broadcast (in modern times), store-and-forward, proxy, repeat, bridge and route?
those didn't exist at all (in any real sense) 80 yrs ago.
besides, you can't have it both ways: copyright was supposed to expire in a 'normal' period of time, but we kept changing things as things were about to expire, so that public property would not be public YET. if the government won't respect its own laws, why should we?
anyway, copyright is not the same thing it once was, and broadcasting over the air is a trade: you get to use airwaves and you get funding from (lots of places). you have been funded and you chose to transmit data in the clear. what happens after that is NOT your business. it stopped being 'yours' once it hit the public non-encrypted airwaves.
Re: (Score:2)
A normal period of time would be 13 years. With one renewal for the human who wrote it, or his survivors if he died during the first copyright period.
Like it was originally.
Re: (Score:2)
There are quite a few laws older than 80 years with a lot of relevance today, starting with the Bill of Rights.
However, if being in public means anyone is free to follow and video me and my activities, then sell this information for a profit (traffic cams, private investigators, etc.) - I see how repeating broadcast television on the internet, without or even with time-shift delays, should also be free for anyone to undertake as a business.
There will be higher bidders in the courtroom than the individual li
Re: (Score:2)
"However, if being in public means anyone is free to follow and video me and my activities, then sell this information for a profit (traffic cams, private investigators, etc.) - I see how repeating broadcast television on the internet, without or even with time-shift delays, should also be free for anyone to undertake as a business."
Strictly speaking, no. While what one does in public is theoretically recordable by anybody, that doesn't mean they can use it for profit without your permission. That remains under your control. Legally, that is.
But you do bring up a good point. That would seem to conflict with things like traffic cameras, which are generally run by private firms, for a profit.
Not that I would mind seeing them get shot down. According to studies they seldom do any good, and often actually increase accident rates.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not what I was talking about. you need to re-read what I posted. I didn't say no old laws ever apply; but ones that were that old and being applied to technology usually fail because communication is vastly different from how it was before, scales have changed, methods, what is publicly funded and what is supposed to be already funded (ie, no double dipping).
Re: (Score:2)
You hit a trip wire with me, I went to a lawyer once asking about civil rights considerations for disabled children and the schools, the bastard sat there, lied to me about several factual points, and dismissed my concerns about the ADA, Free and Appropriate public education, etc. with the total gem "those laws are from the 1960s, does anyone do anything about those anymore?" Guy was a total tool, and drinking buddy with the bad side of the local school board.
Re: (Score:2)
"Public performance" has the same definition it did 80 years ago. The ways that content can be delivered to the public has changed a lot, but it's all still public performance.
Besides I Love Lucy reruns, all of the content shown on TV has been copyrighted in the last few years. So I'm not sure where you were going with that paragraph.
Re:Those with the money (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree.
what was a public broadcast back then is not even close to what is a 'broadcast' now.
and, add to this the notion of 'store and replay later'. you could not DO that back then unless you were a recording studio. today, everyone is a 'recording studio' in terms of being able to save digital content and play it back later.
the # of people you could reach before was limited. now, the rules are all different and you don't have to have them all tuned in at the same freq, in the same area of the world at the same time.
add to this the fact that 'copyright' does not mean the same thing world wide and so when you send out content to the internet, not everyone is bound by US rules!
the world in tech is so different, its not sensible to apply what we considered 'content distribution' to today's world. too much is not applicable and some things we have today were not even conceived of back then.
laws should never be static. they need to be updated to fit the age. copyright was never updated in peoples' favor, only in corporations' favor. that, in itself, means that it was not maintained in a fair and just manner.
Re: (Score:2)
laws should never be static. they need to be updated to fit the age. copyright was never updated in peoples' favor, only in corporations' favor. that, in itself, means that it was not maintained in a fair and just manner.
I disagree. Laws should be static. They should be based on principles so that they do not need to change with each new technology. Search and seizure of personal effects? Applies to email and phone conversations now as much as it did to letters in the 1700s. The current unconstitutional interpretation is absolute shit because it violates the principle behind the 4th. THAT is the real problem.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a meaningless assertion. Whatever way a law goes, it benefits some corporations, while disadvantaging different corporations. For instance, CD and DVD recorder sales benefit tech corporations, but possibly at the expense of motion picture corporations.
And changes to copyright law since publications have absolutely benefited the public... Fair use, to name but one (and entirely destroy your absolutist assertions).
http://www. [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to hear how exactly Aereo is harming the broadcasters. Nothing they do takes revenue from the broadcasters. If anything they are helping keep the OTA market alive longer.
What it really sounds like is going on is either a money grab so Aereo has to pay the broadcasters like the cable/sat companies or they are just blocking the new guy in the market. I guess another option is "they" (big corp and/or gov) want the OTA market to die off because they are more valuable elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It undercuts the local affiliates, some of which are owned by the networks themselves and others have exclusivity contracts with the networks. It's the affiliates (and their ability to insert local advertising) who lose out. And since there's still a chunk of the market that only gets OTA signals, the broadcasters and affiliates are reluctant to give that up.
Part of the government would be only too happy to let OTA die and reclaim the bandwidth, but other parts are protective of that fraction of the country
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try but Aereo does NOT alter the broadcasted content. All ads (local, regional, and national, etc) are included in the recording. The recording is only available to the customer and the customer has to live in the region so the ads are not being shown to any unintended receivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, yes, I just realized that upon further research. I withdraw my comment, and return to being baffled.
Re: (Score:2)
I just murdered someone... but you can't arrest me, because it was in the cloud!
Re:Those with the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Aereo is a public performance of copyrighted material. You cannot do that. You will get slapped.
A public performance?
You have every right to receive, for free, at no additional cost, any broadcast TV signal your antenna can bring in, and to record it on a DVR, and to have the DVR send it to the TV via Ethernet if you want to.
This is just subcontracting the antenna, DVR, and Ethernet part out to someone else.
Fundamentals (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I suppose in order for the Broadcasters to maintain the fiction of being broadcasters, they have to broadcast -- but they make money now with a subscription and commercials and syndication.
Having someone RECEIVE the signal and make it easy for you to get the programming -- well, that flies in the face of burying the broadcast signal in the basement, in a filing cabinet, with a sign posted "tiger might kill you."
And a Copyright is a Copy Legacy, to bequeathed to those with the blood of the line of Disne
Re: (Score:2)
This has a lot less to do with the cable monopolies than it does with the broadcast monopolies.
Remember, the law the broadcasters were pushing for back in the early to mid-80s would have forced cable to carry all broadcast channels in the area, whether the cable customers had any interest in them or not, and forced the cable companies to pay the broadcasters for that "privilege".
The cable companies objection is that Aereo isn't forced to inflate prices to cover payments to broadcasters the way the cable com
Re:Those with the money (Score:5, Informative)
"Public" how, exactly? If I have an antenna on my roof and run that signal into my DVR where I then record a show and store it for private viewing, there's nothing illegal about that, right? If I live in an apartment complex and rent an antenna on the roof instead of owning it, but otherwise do everything the same, that's fine too, right? What if I rent the DVR from a third-party like TiVo? Still cool, right? What if I kept the DVR in a different room, far away from the TV? There's nothing illegal about renting an antenna or hiding equipment away in a closet far away from the TV (in fact, most of us prefer to do that already).
That's all that Aereo is, except that the A/V wire connecting the DVR to the TV stretches over the Internet. Each customer rents their own antenna that picks up broadcast signals that only that person can then watch. Their copy of the signal is kept for them, tied to their account, where only they can view it. And Aereo isn't even going against broadcast blackout regions or the like, since the antennas are local to the users. All they're doing is letting the user move the antenna and DVR to a far away equipment closet that the user then rents from them.
So, again I ask: how exactly is it "public"? Hell, how exactly is it any different than just renting a DVR and antenna that are installed at home? If it's that it's "in the cloud", I'm willing to bet that we'd agree that, while ridiculous, it would be perfectly legal to run the necessary A/V cables from Aereo's HQ to my home, so why would using the Internet magically make it illegal? The fact that I have to access it over the Internet doesn't magically make it public, illegal, or otherwise illicit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well reasoned, but I think it misses a fundamental point.
It's the public's airways/bandwidth to begin with. Broadcast on the public airwaves should by law be a grant of rights to time/place/format shift however anyone feels like for unchanged content. In private, for a fee, public performance, shouldn't matter, as long as some company isn't replacing the ads or otherwise altering the content. That's what "OTA broadcast" should mean: anyone anywhere can now watch it.
Re:Those with the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Although Aereo might simply be a remote antenna you pay another party to provide, keep in mind that cable companies are required to pay retransmission fees. How is Aereo's service different than cable? After all, if companies that provide traditional Community Antenna TeleVision service must pay, why shouldn't Aereo?
Whenever you broadcast, each person picking up the signal is effectively receiving a copy of the content. The purpose of retransmission fees is to cover those copies. In contrast, Aereo is not making new copies; it's merely working with the copies that have already been produced and to which each of its users is already entitled. That's why it's so important that they have a 1:1 ratio between antennas, storage of content, and user accounts: it proves that each of those users is legally entitled to the copy that Aereo is receiving, storing, and unicasting to them. Were they doing something like having one antenna and allowing anyone to tune into it over the 'net, this would be an entirely different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
How is Aereo's service different than cable?
It effectively isn't ... and thats what the broadcasters are afraid of.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely it is not antennas that are the issue but the tuners. Because as many people have pointed out most apartment blocks share a single aerial which via a distribution amplifier is fed to each apartment. Heck many houses have a single aerial which via a distribution amplifier feeds more than one television.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you asserting that placing your TV where someone on the street can see it is a illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
> Aereo is a public performance of copyrighted material. You cannot do that. You will get slapped.
Aereo is the rental of an antenna. It's no more a public performance than the rental of a VCR.
This is already settled law despite the attempts of certain people to ensure that only large corporations have rights.
Re: (Score:2)
its like saying my landlord is violating copyright if everyone in our apartment building hung out an antenna and saved a personal copy of the shows they wanted.
Your landlord hasn't hung out a single large PCB with everyone's antenna being a small button-sized module attached to it.
But I think the bigger problem for them is They dynamically assign antennas. It's not like you're renting a specific antenna.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OK how about this.
If I buy a DVR and antenna and put it on my roof am I in the right? - Yep
Ok, rent a DVR and antenna and put them on my roof? - I think we can both agree yes.
OK, rent a DVR and antenna, and whenever I want them they get mailed to me, I put them on my roof and when I am done I mail them back? NO guarantee I get the same antenna or DVR, but I think we still agree this is ok?
What if I rent a DVR and antenna, and rent some space at my neighbours house to store them. And run a long thick HDMI
Re: (Score:2)
What difference does it make, as long as it's only one at a time? I rent one antenna for "The Real Housewives of New Jersey", and later I rent a different antenna for A Very Special Episode of "Law And Order: SVU"... exactly how does the changing of the antenna affect copyright?
In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The same Justice Department officials will soon leave to work for the various broadcast networks.
Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of them are already industry lawyers to begin with.
http://www.wired.com/threatlev... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The same Justice Department officials will soon leave to work for the various broadcast networks.
Yeah, too bad there aren't some in there planning to go to work for the cable giants to act as a counterbalance to them.
MPAA lawyer runs US Solicitor General (Score:3)
The story is that the US Solicitor General (whose office prepared this brief) is a former top lawyer for the MPAA. [techdirt.com]
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." Obi-Wan Kenobi
Re: (Score:3)
When Obama appointed a Monsanto stooge to decide what we were permitted to eat, that was my sign. They really are trying to kill and enslave us.
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA also. He's the lawyer from Capitol v. Thomas.
Thank goodness for Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank goodness we've got the Obama administration to bring some common sense back to government and stand up for the little guy.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't time warner provide you with a free or some low cost box to decrypt the newly encrypted local feed?
used to be you could just plug the cable into your TV
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With ABC, not so much [go.com]:
Verify your TV provider to watch ABC programming at no additional cost.*
* You must verify your participating TV provider account for access to certain WATCH ABC on demand features. It's included in your TV subscription services. Show and episode availability are subject to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That would have been a great service model, which is why it couldn't possibly last. Fox TV, and now ABC, limit the free recent episodes to viewvers who can "verify" their cable service. In both cases, you can only "verify" if you have an account with a tiny list of services that are mostly unknowns. I get these stations through one of the nation's largest cable providers, but it's never in the select list. Torrents, here I come.
Re: (Score:2)
this is why i can't wait for comcast to buy time warner cable
comcast is always on the streaming list of providers
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In my experience.... (Score:4, Insightful)
.... many networks will stream a good portion of the shows that they air, usually only a day or so after initial broadcast... and typically leave them available for about a week. There's commercials, of course, but it's really not that bad a way to watch television. I'm not sure what need Aero was really trying to fill.
Probably the needs of those for whom those qualifiers are problematic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the commercials, what's overinflated? OTA broadcast should by rights mean "anyone anywhere can now watch this content (unaltered) in any way they choose". Their our airways, after all. The only thing lost if any program broadcast ever anywhere was available for streaming unaltered on the internet (legally) would be the ease of counting the audience size for pricing the commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
> So it's trying to fill the needs of people who have an overinflated sense of entitlement? Okay.... got it.
Yes. The "overinflated sense of entitlement" to something that is BROADCAST FOR FREE on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES for EVERYONE.
Yeah. That's quite a "sense of entitlement": expecting to be able to receive a broadcast of a TV station in their broadcast area.
What's next? Perhaps they will expect clean air and fresh water.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about all the stuff they dont put on the streaming sites.
Plenty of sporting events aired on OTA TV but which you cant legally stream over the internet (or cant legally stream live or cant legally stream unless you have a specific ISP or provider).
Or for that matter try finding a stream of something like the local news and weather forecast from he local network.
Or even the national news programming (including things like the Today Show on NBC).
Aereo will (if you are in their service area) give you a
Cable companies steal my free TV broadcasts (Score:2)
Is anyone doing anything about that?
Yeah.
Didn't think so.
Look, in First World countries, you get high bandwidth internet that is 10-20 times faster than the US for $20 a month or less and you get fewer commercials and lower cable bills.
We live in a Second World country.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cable companies steal my free TV broadcasts
Is anyone doing anything about that?"
Actually, the OTA broadcasts that cable receives and "re-transmits" aren't being stolen because the cable companies have to pay those local broadcasters (which of course really means the cable subscribers do).
And the viewers via cable are just as much a part of the ratings as the OTA viewers, so ad rates reflect that higher number.
Re: (Score:1)
You call it fair use, I call it theft from the public.
Same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Who calls what theft from the public?
Did you used to be Will in Seattle?
Foolish... (Score:2)
Cord cutters might have actually watched their advertisements on occasion. Now... not a chance.
They just marginalized themselves for nothing.
Mini Apartment (Score:2)
How is this different than leasing a very tiny apartment somewhere?
The check (Score:1)
must have cleared.
Can someone explain this case to me? (Score:2)
I don't understand the business model. Who is suing Aereo and why? I don't see how the TV broadcasting companies would be angry that someone has, for free, extended the range of their signal.
Here is my understanding of the industry:
Content providers make content.
TV broadcasters pay content providers for content.
TV broadcasters sell ads to companies.
TV broadcasters distribute content + ads.
So content providers profit from broadcasters. And broadcasters profit from advertisers. Aereo forwards the TV broad
Re: (Score:2)
It is, right up to the point where the cable from the antenna to the remote location is broken. At that point, it's not a direct lease - you are modifying the signal - combining, splitting, transcoding, retransmitting. 1:1 is the limit.
Re: (Score:1)
nope; the customer is doing that.
They are renting a DVR (device that consumes antenna signals) and renting a TV Aerial (device that harvests antenna signals).
They feed that antenna signal into a DVR which decodes it into video information and saves it.
Note: nothing special going on except the dvr is in a closet at Aereo.
Then I log into the DVR stored in the Aereo closet, I ask the DVR that I rent to send me the signal in a format I can consume. Normally, this is HDMI signals (very different from the signal