UPDATE, 6:35 PM: Aereo says that it will defend itself against the broadcasters’ suits. “Consumers are legally entitled to access broadcast television via an antenna and they are entitled to record television content for their personal use,” the company says. New technologies have “made access to television easier and better for consumers….Aereo looks forward to its upcoming product launch as well as a prompt resolution of these cases.”
PREVIOUS, 4:02 PM: It didn’t take long for several companies with New York television stations — including PBS, Fox Television, Univision, and WPIX — to challenge the new firm that wants to sell Web streams of the broadcasters’ over-the-air transmissions. (UPDATE: ABC, CBS and NBC Universal also filed a complaint today against Aereo along with a statement: “This service is based on the illegal use of our content. Beyond that, we believe the complaint speaks for itself.”) Aereo said last month that it would launch its $12 a month subscription service in the Big Apple on March 14. In addition to retransmitting TV signals, Aereo — backed in part by Barry Diller — would offer customers the ability to record and watch shows on demand, much like they would with a DVR. But the station owners asked the U.S. District Court in New York to issue an injunction, alleging that the new business “free rides on (the stations’) substantial investment in their broadcasting infrastructure.” The rights that they buy to their content are “the economic foundation upon which the television production and distribution industries rest.” If the court doesn’t act, the plaintiffs say, then Aereo will undermine the stations’ ability to create business opportunities by streaming their content. National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton says the group “strongly supports” the suit. ”A plaintiffs’ win in this case will ensure the continued availability of (free and diverse) programming to the viewing public.” Prior to today’s action, Aereo said that it was not infringing on broadcasters’ rights: The company has a tiny antenna, about the size of a dime, for each customer. In effect, subscribers rent them to pick up the free, over-the-air signals that they also can receive at home. The argument is similar to the one that Cablevision successfully made in court on behalf of its remote storage DVR.


The argument is actually not similar to the one Cablevision successfully made for its remote storage DVR. In that case, Cablevision had already negotiated for all of the content, i.e. the copyrights, and merely had to prove that a remote DVR was the equivalent of a local one. In other words, where the box sits is irrelevant. To the extent that argument was a precedent, it didn’t even keep Zediva alive (which let you rent DVDs over the net by quite literally dedicated a DVD player for you and putting a disc in when you rented it).
In this case, Aereo loses on multiple counts. First of all, the antenna you are “renting” is not yours. It’s used by whoever happens to be online. (Let’s just leave out the DVR part and presume the courts will agree that’s functionally equivalent to what Cablevision does and would be Ok, if not for what will shut them down.. so keep reading.)
Second of all, they have no rights to the copyrighted content and, hey, guess what, there are already laws covering the retransmission of broadcast TV over the internet, cable, etc. You can’t dodge them using this. Yes, I can with my Slingbox as an individual; that’s an entirely different safe harbor. You can’t as a service provider and charge money for it. It just doesn’t work that way. It’s bizarre that this is being rolled out at all. It’s impossibly illegal in its current form. And they wasted a lot of money on these ridiculous tiny antennas. Honestly, their technology was basically a “solution in search of a method to try to circumvent existing laws on retransmission consent”. The courts never smile upon these things.
No one would ever have designed a system the way they do for any other purpose. They’d have used one antenna and multiple streams off a single re-encoder. Which, in fact, is what they should have done. And they should have just paid the retrans fees for the content. My guess is they could’ve gotten all this stuff for like $3/sub per month given how incredibly limited the product is anyway.
This will destroy the tv biz just like napster destroyed the music biz
I wonder if this venture is backed by the CIA ?
O
Yes, surely charging $12 / month for content people can already get as part of >every single< cable package or, if they really must, free with an antenna is going to destroy the TV biz.
Mark the problem is that the advertisers will jump ship from the major networks to Aereo or ask for a 70% discount from the networks on their sky high rates, the networks will come back with a 50-60% discount, they will lose money from the quarters before, their stock will drop 20-30%.
That will translate to massive layoffs of million dollar plus earners in tv land, which will also translate to massive cuts in making tv shows, and so on and so on,
trust me this is going to be the end of network tv, all that will be left are youtube shows and reruns,
ironically in the music biz many a young music fan are asking in the forums why there are no longer up and coming artists like Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, U2, Aerosmith, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Rage against the machine, Limp Bizkit,
it seems like these young music fans want young groups to grow up with, well young music fans your friends from india, phillipines, russia killed that off for at least 10 years, maybe 20,
I’ll give ya a hint, “napster, kaza, shareza, itunes, amazon and the list goes on and on” sad but true, the internet killed the radio and video star and the untimely death of the tv star is next
btw HBO just canceled over 5 of their hit shows, that alone should give you a hint of where this is all headed,
me I am just looking for that last golden parachute to retire for life on, and I am outta here,
O_O