Court: Aereo TV Rebroadcast Is Still Legal 64
Maximum Prophet writes "While Redigi is illegal, Aereo, the service that allows users to time-shift over-the-air TV programming, isn't. 'We conclude that Aereo's transmissions of unique copies of broadcast television programs created at its users' requests and transmitted while the programs are still airing on broadcast television are not 'public performances' of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works,' said the ruling (PDF). Of course, both decisions are going to be appealed. 'The outcome also answers the question, at least momentarily, of whether online television would be controlled by a stodgy industry that once shunned the VCR, or whether third-party innovators embracing technological advances have a chance to build on the openness of public airwaves. ... Aereo’s technological setup, the court found, basically allows it to do what cable companies could not: retransmit broadcast airwaves without paying licensing fees. In short, the Aereo service is as legal as somebody putting an antenna on top of their house to capture broadcast signals. The court said Aereo “provides the functionality of three devices: a standard TV antenna, a DVR, and a Slingbox” device. “Each of these devices is legal, so it stands to reason that a service that combines them is also legal. Only in the world of copyright maximalists do people need to get special permission to watch over-the-air television with an antenna,” said John Bergmayer, an attorney with the digital-rights group Public Knowledge. “Just because ‘the internet’ is involved doesn’t change this."'"
PBS... (Score:4, Interesting)
Undeterred, a group of the plaintiffs, including Fox and PBS, said they intended to move to trial. “Today’s decision is a loss for the entire creative community,” they said in a statement. “The court has ruled that it is O.K. to steal copyrighted material and retransmit it without compensation. While we are disappointed with this decision, we have and are considering our options to protect our programming.”
I recall something in the last election about how PBS should be entitled to government funding for "the greater good", meanwhile their sales of DVDs and other whatnot's (which apparently they are now trying to protect) go directly into the pockets of the executives instead of repaying what the government gave them. Never mind that big bird makes hundreds of millions per year in addition to paying nothing for its main source of distribution.
Why is government subsidized work supposed to be the property of this so called benevolent broadcaster?
And no, I'm neither a Romney supporter nor a Republican. I'm just one of those libertarians who is a nut for thinking that the government handing money to private entities who otherwise have a perfectly sustainable business model (and are in fact very profitable) is ripping off the taxpayers, and I'm annoyed as hell that somebody would be painted as being the bad guy who "hates free education for children" because he wants to take away said funding.
Re:What a hack (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. At that point, the re-broadcaster could actually fail the no harm no foul principle that SHOULD be part of our legal system at the fundamental level.
If someone wants to re-broaddcast your signal to people who are definitely in your broadcast area, where is the harm? At WORST, they boost your viewership a bit.
The issue of out of area broadcasts is separate and is not something Aero has ever tried to do.
However, in your scenario the station being re-broadcast out of area would have no cause for complaint since their audience is growing. The competing stations might not be terribly happy, but they don't actually have proprietary rights over the viewers, they are expected to attract them. Their complaint would be the same as McDonald's suing Burger King for offering a better or cheaper burger.
I note that thus far, the courts have not been at all sympathetic to the workers in your analogy. However, if it was found that there was a compelling social interest in maintaining viewership areas, legislation would be drafted to cover it (thus granting the previously missing limited proprietary rights over viewers), not individual court actions.
That would in itself be limited. After all, we do not deem it appropriate to protect an NBC affiliate in an area from a competing CBS affiliate.