1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court decsion may effect Tivo?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by eboydog, Apr 21, 2014.

  1. May 3, 2014 #221 of 323
    steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal for the time being...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.
    If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.
     
  2. May 3, 2014 #222 of 323
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    That's irrevocably flawed logic. It denies the possibility of people violating the law - an assertion that is patently absurd. Incorporation and granting of certification to collect taxes doesn't certify the legality of the business conducted. And the specific matter of the legality of this business is not yet through the legal process to determine whether it is legal or not. The reality is that if the SCOTUS finds that what Aereo is doing is a violation, they're not only going to have to stop doing it, but that ratifies any and all civil lawsuits that will be initiated by the local broadcasters whose signals Aereo is retransmitting, something that wouldn't be possible if what Aereo is doing isn't a violation until the SCOTUS rules against them. The fact that the local broadcasters won't be able to collect on those claims, because Aereo will be Chapter 7, doesn't obviate the fact that what they were doing was indeed a violation.

    The broadcasters have already sent cease and desist orders to Aereo, but of course, to be effective they must be court orders. Isn't the refusal by the courts to grant a C&D is part of what's being appealed? UPDATED: Actually there was at least one C&D (court) order, but it was set aside, as part of the appeals process, which - again - is not yet over.
     
  3. May 3, 2014 #223 of 323
    lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    +1
     
  4. May 3, 2014 #224 of 323
    unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    It ain't over 'til the fat Justice sings?
     
  5. May 3, 2014 #225 of 323
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,426
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing? Yeah right. They designed it to comply with the law. If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, they will find Aereo legal based on them finding a loophole in the law, and will defer to Congress to re-write the law if they want to help their campaign donors who represent the big networks and screw Aereo by closing that loophole. But that is Congress's decision, not the court's.
     
  6. May 3, 2014 #226 of 323
    lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    You think in a new type of business any lawyer can know for sure that it is legal, not even close, just look at the first VCRs, it did take the SC to say it was legal, you don't think Sony had good lawyers ?
     
  7. May 3, 2014 #227 of 323
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,184
    25
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Isn't it legal because the lower court ruled in their favor?
    The only way for it to become illegal is for the SC to overturn that ruling or for congress to change some things.
     
  8. May 4, 2014 #228 of 323
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    What seems most strange is that you seem not to realize that the explanations in every rationalization you post in Aereo's defense applies just as readily to those who filed cease and desist letters against Aereo.
     
  9. May 4, 2014 #229 of 323
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Both of these statements are no less true when speaking of Aereo itself (including the characterization of what Aereo does as a "kludgy hackaround."

    Do you think the broadcasters don't have good lawyers? Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law. There have been some court decisions against Aereo, so at least some judges agree that what Aereo is doing is an infringement of copyright protections.

    Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.
     
  10. May 4, 2014 #230 of 323
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    This is actually very true in the Aereo case. It has been ruled on differently by two different courts, one that it's legal and one that it's not. So, the law has been interpreted differently, and it is both legal and illegal for Aereo to operate, depending on which part of the country you're in.

    So, just about everyone who has commented on the legality of it is technically right for now.
     
  11. May 4, 2014 #231 of 323
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I believe the opposite. CBS and FOX believe they can LOSE the case. That is why they are making stupid threats about moving the networks to cable. I think they view Aereo as a real threat who has the ability to crush their business by using a loophole in the law that may or may not ever get closed. Broadcast TV already isn't what it once was and Aereo has the potential to be a huge disruption only furthering the inevitable end of broadcast TV.
     
  12. May 4, 2014 #232 of 323
    unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?
     
  13. May 4, 2014 #233 of 323
    lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    I don't think that is the issue, the Cable systems pay the networks for re-transmission, if Aereo should win than the cable type co.s may be able to get out of paying money to the networks, that would cost them.

    Remember we have a fluid legal system in our country, in the 50s ATT was legal, than they became not so legal and had to break up, Abortion was illegal in many states, then in 1973 it became legal in all states (Roe vs Wade), even Amazon.com was doing legal business with their one-click checkout , then got sued by someone because their business had used this one-click checkout before Amazon, this case is so ridiculous (IMHO) I have not followed it as I go nuts thinking about it.
    The point being the USA does not have a fixed legal system for things that have never been decided in court, and also for thing that were decided in court, that later congress changed.
    Two things I know for sure you can't start a business to rob banks, and with you getting the proper license from your town, you can sell lemonade on your lawn.
     
  14. May 4, 2014 #234 of 323
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,426
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    They would have had to have been pretty sure to let it continue.

    Not at all. The networks are just having a hissy fit because the law had a giant loophole in it, and they don't like change, so they are grasping at straws to find something to bring Aereo down.

    Aereo is totally a kludgy hackaround to exploit a loophole in the law. But that loophole is in the law, so Aereo is legal. If the broadcasters want the law changed, then they are going to need to throw some more cash to Congress to buy themselves a new law that would force Aereo to pay retrans fees.

    They are delusional if they think they are right. I think they are throwing a big hissy fit and know it. Really, what they are doing is taking the first steps to then go to Congress and ask for the law to be changed, and they will have the background to say that they have gone through the process to determine what the existing law said.

    In order to support the networks' case, you have to go by the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law. Well, that's not how laws work, they work based on exactly what is written, not some interpretation of what they might have been meant to mean, even though they don't.

    Not the way the law is written today. And if it were re-written, our corrupt Congress would likely tilt it far in favor of the networks, and against Aereo. At least I would hope that they would have the common sense to write into the law that Aereo automatically gets the ability to get a restrans agreement at the lowest price that the network offered it to any other provider.
     
  15. May 4, 2014 #235 of 323
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    No. They are going to bring the end of broadcast TV by eliminating carriage fees. If Aereo doesn't pay, cable companies won't pay either. They will simply copy the technology. Likely, they will even charge us MORE for the new "feature".
     
  16. May 4, 2014 #236 of 323
    unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    So are the cable companies going to come up with a new type of set-top box so they can "internet" the local channels to their subscribers? Will it replace the ones people have to rent from them now?

    Trying to integrate that with the current boxes and cable supplied DVRs would be a support nightmare, I'd think, especially if it meant 2 cable company remote controls to have to keep up with.

    They can't plan on all of their customers being savvy enough to hook a computer up to their TVs.
     
  17. May 5, 2014 #237 of 323
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    That's nothing more than a self-serving bit of claptrap with no basis in the facts, the law, or the industry.

    You want Aereo to win. Message received. Stop trying to make it sound - even to yourself - like they have got to win. All you're doing, in doing so, is setting yourself up for a much bigger disappointment, and a much steeper climb down the hill of your previous comments, should they lose. This isn't morality or religion we're talking about - this is business. And so the Kipling maxim applies: "Trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too."
     
  18. May 5, 2014 #238 of 323
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they [the lawmakers] might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.
     
  19. May 5, 2014 #239 of 323
    lessd

    lessd Active Member

    7,695
    5
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    The ACA is a good example of what you just said, as the SC said that a penalty that the ACA calls for in plane English is not a penalty at all, it is a tax, congress just did not know the difference when they passed the ACA, but the SC did know what congress meant as a penalty would not have been legal, so the SC changed the word in the ACA law from penalty to tax.
    Our legal is great, is it not !!!
     
  20. May 5, 2014 #240 of 323
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,426
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The STB part of it is the least of the issues. It could be seamlessly integrated to the user. But, as I have explained in previous posts, it makes no sense from a network standpoint. It would cost tens of millions if not more in network architecture and bandwidth build-outs to save millions on carriage fees. The math just doesn't work out on this luny idea.

    I have no hill to climb down if the lose. My personal opinion is that they will lose. However, the court either follows the existing law, as written, and Aereo wins, or they in effect legislate from the bench and bow to the corporate interests, and the networks win. If the court wants to follow the law, then they have to rule in favor of Aereo, as the law is extremely clear in what it says. I find it abhorrent that the administration, whom I originally supported but have cooled off to post-2008, supports Obama's corporate buddies in the business, and not the law. He, as a lawyer, should know better, although maybe he hasn't actually reviewed all the law himself (I hope he hasn't considering that he has far more important things to do).

    The court should give an option to Congress, like they did with Net Neutrality, except here the corrupt corporate interests would be on the other side of the legislation, to go and change the law, but they should follow the law as written in their decision and deem Aereo legal under current law. Then Aereo and the networks can go battle it out in Congress. The networks will probably keep throwing hissy fits all over the place, but in reality, it doesn't really affect them. If anything, Aereo helps them out a bit.

    If the law says what the law says, then that's what it says. Not what someone might have meant it to say. Computers aren't that sophisticated yet. And what the law says is that Aereo is legal in the United States.
     

Share This Page