Skip to main content

Supreme Court Kills Aereo


I know the cutting-the-cord crowd had been pimping the Aereo service, but it appears that the dream is pretty much dead from a legal standpoint.  Would have been cool if they had come to Saskatoon so I could stream the 2 channels we get here over the air (not even being facetious there, we get TWO channels) but I can see why they'd lose.  

Comments

  1. I am shocked anyone thought Aereo was legal. You can't make money off of content that isn't your own or that you're not licensing. It's the foundation of copyright law in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed. I would love to see this be an opportunity for Aereo to change rather than close up. They could seriously be a legal online streaming cable company with DVR abilities as opposed to Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu where everything is On Demand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well 3 of the 9 justices thought it was legal

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, look who those three justices were.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is this like when 4 out of 5 dentists recommend a toothpaste?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Supreme court? I blame Scherer for this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Putting the networks aside, I don't see how you could side with Aereo when they're pretty clearly violating the copyrights of content creators.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Funny enough, Scott's the only one I've read regularly, although I did dabble in Kunze, CRZ, and The Rick in earlier years; I guess his writing style is the most enjoyable for me to read of all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stranger in the AlpsJune 26, 2014 at 8:30 AM

    This John Cena going back in time to 1995 ECW and single-handedly beating the entire roster in one big gauntlet match.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And while I'm certainly no big fan of American copyright law, as a matter of business weakening it to the extent siding with Aereo here would wouldn't just mean the end of cable (or broadcast networks), but the end of damn near all television content if you couldn't even enforce your right to sell your product without people taking it without paying.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've never heard of Aereo. Is this like a "parent company" that has other streaming sites that i've heard of? Or is it specifically Aereo?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The precedent was that cable companies had to pay to rebroadcast those channels, right? So I see why THIS decision happened, but I'm still puzzled over the first one. Broadcast TV channels don't make money from subscribers, so cable/Aereo aren't cutting into their business.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that Scherer wants to take me to the Supreme Court



    His lawsuit threats are bordering on delusion right now and definitely harassment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The people who make the shows charge money to broadcast them. Aereo is infringing on *their* copyrights.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Excellent. Network TV for all!

    ReplyDelete
  16. This sucks. I heard about Aereo last year and was about to sign up for it until I heard about the court case. I wanted to wait and see what would happen. For a guy liek me that watches almost everything on my computer, this sucks. I guess I will shift over to a digital antenna and a capture card, but Aereo's DVD and accessibility were key in my wanting the service.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's specifically Aereo, which has started up over the last year or so.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think I have ever agreed with Scalia on anything, but he was right to oppose the ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Have they continued after the thread last night?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think he is using Google way too much or bought one of those progams you can use to look up people's records and trying to pass it off like his lawyers are researching me.


    He is a huge loser

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just tell him YOUR attorney has advised that he needs to knock it off or harassment charges will be filed. It has about as much force and effect as his legal threats. And maybe he'll back off.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Libraries used to have warnings about photocopying copyright material posted on their copiers.

    I don't think anyone paid those notices any attention though. Practically everything in a library is under copyright, so I don't know what they thought people would use them for

    ReplyDelete
  23. This was a pretty clear cut case, what Aereo was doing was clearly illegal. Bummer though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. there's nothing to stop them from setting up shop in Canada, as far as I can tell

    ReplyDelete
  25. This bluff will work fine until Scherer reads this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree, but the "ME ME ME, FREE FREE FREE!!!" part of me disagrees.... But yes, overall, I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why would someone borrow a book from a library - for free - and then pay a per page rate to make a copy? Is that what he meant?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, in that case. Mr. Scherer, as Mr. Bayless' legal advisor, I remit that you cease and desist all activities pertaining to Mr. Bayless' online profile and/or information. If you have any questions pertaining to this request, please file them in writing to blowitoutyourass@goaway.net.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The preceding comment was meant as parody and not meant as an actual legal procedure. Mr. Extant1979 in no way represents any legal point of view and is simply representing a common sense argument against an ass clown who runs a crappy virus-filled website. Any legal advise given by Mr. Extant1979 runs the same risk when followed as taking the WCW Top 10 seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Long story short, what's going on? Wasn't on last night

    ReplyDelete
  31. I was just coming here to see if Scott had posted this yet. I am not really surprised as it was a grey area at best and when in doubt the Supreme Court is going to side with the corporations... it is a shame because this could have revolutionized the industry and changed everything.

    I wonder if they could pay the fees to the network like other providers and just up the price of their service, I think there would still be some value in that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. CruelConnectionNumber2June 26, 2014 at 9:17 AM

    I have never heard of Aereo in my life. I use Pirate Bay and VIPBox for my shows.

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://www.rspwfaq.net/2014/06/dave-scherer-goes-insane-threatens-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. This is where I think WWE is ahead of the curve with its Network. If it ends up being successful, I could see other providers telling cable companies to f-off and go straight to consumers. HBO2GO would be gigantic if it allowed people to pay for the service without having to have HBO subscription via TV first.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Agreed. I think that is the future. Once cable channels... say MTV become confident that people will pay them for their content this way and it will not hurt their bottom line from money they lose from cable/satellite.

    I would even think there could be an upside for niche channels that have to fuck around with cable companies (I don't watch enough TV to give a good example) in that they would not have to deal with cable providers and that they could target their channel to people specifically interested in that niche who may not be willing to pay for a whole cable package but still want to see that specific thing... this is essentially what I do with WWE network I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Porn Peddlin' Jef VinsonJune 26, 2014 at 9:34 AM

    What does this have to do with Scherer and his apparent sexual attraction to Labrador retrievers?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sounds like he's making a number of Bayceless accusations.

    I'll just hold my hand out high; should you feel like fiving, feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whatever, just as long as Aereosmith keeps on rocking, that's all I care about.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I liked the idea of Aereo but I can get the same results with an antenna and a capture card plus the convenience of the commercials being ripped out so I don't have to put up with bullshit political ads. Or just torrent it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well I thought that was exactly where they were headed but why do that when you can just crush them instead?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Crikey Mate Down Under AussieJune 26, 2014 at 10:00 AM

    *high five*

    Well deserved

    ReplyDelete
  42. This is really showing me how much I have changed. A few years ago I would be all up in arms about the Supreme Court siding with the corporations again, getting petitions ready organizing people to call their reps. etc... all the useless shit that activists do when the Supreme Court gets it wrong man!

    Now I am upset that this will not revolutionize the streaming media industry and destroy the cable industry... because I stood to make some good money if it did.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, they could still cut deals with the content providers.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Indeed. I hope Aereo finds a way to adapt and make this work... but it going the other way would have served my personal interest! WHO IS JON GAULT?

    ReplyDelete
  45. The problem is see is that it still won't be truly a la carte. Once Fox decides this is a viable model, you will be able to buy a Fox App and pay a monthly fee, but you'll be paying for access to all their networks: Fox News, fx, FXX, fox sports 1, fox movies, etc etc. And you'll still probably be stuck paying as much as you are now -- if you really want FX, TBS and ESPN, you'll probably be paying $10/month for each package with still a ton of stuff you don't want.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Even if you get just the channel you want I can't see it ever going below the $10 a month price point

    ReplyDelete
  47. why has it been "clearly illegal"?

    there are similar services here that have been around for years. you can get all over the air and the majority of cable channels for cheap (although I am not sure if they have any form of financial agreement with the tv stations).

    ReplyDelete
  48. as mentioned above, similar services are perfectly legal in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ESPN gets something like $6 pet subscriber, and ESPN2 I think gets $2. So yeah if the cable channels cut out the middle man, $10/month is going to be the price point.

    ReplyDelete
  50. He is a litigious son of a bitch fucker.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It's hard to legalize something after-the-fact, though. Most companies aren't going to go "you were stealing our stuff, but we'll work with you now", ESPECIALLY when it was just your run-of-the-mill broadcast stations that people could watch. No point in paying more for Aereo when, as others have said, you could just get an antenna.

    ReplyDelete
  52. That "financial agreement with the TV stations" makes all the difference, though.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Uncrusimatic_Buck_NastyJune 26, 2014 at 12:39 PM

    as long as the oreos are ok

    ReplyDelete
  54. Uncrusimatic_Buck_NastyJune 26, 2014 at 12:40 PM

    "Once cable channels... say MTV become confident that people will pay them for their content"

    would anyone willing buy mtv a la carte these days? what the hell do they offer?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm...skeptical that this is going to work. You can, in theory, imagine all of the big multimedia companies offering up their own package of streaming networks...but they aren't going to charge the consumer less for that than they're already getting from the cable company. Which means that it won't really be any cheaper for most people who, despite the trend in internet subcultures built around entertainment, There's still value in the model of "paying a flat rate for a whole bunch of channels to randomly surf through" for your average working stiff who just wants to veg out and relax with some mindless entertainment after work.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well, Meekin does have the second coming of Roger Ebert to fall back on to help structure his critiques: Linkara.

    "Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but yours is wrong." - Paul Meekin.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Speaking of Scott, would an Aereo-like service be considered legal in Canada?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment