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. Apr 22, 2014 #21 of 323
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I disagree. The one antenna that Aereo uses is also only available to me at any given moment. If what Aereo is doing is illegal, than I'm guessing the Tivo Stream also becomes an illegal device. If Tivo were in more homes, the broadcasters would be going after them. The fact that Tivo is still a niche market has saved them from a lot of litigation (although they have had their fair share).
     
  2. Apr 22, 2014 #22 of 323
    wmcbrine

    wmcbrine Ziphead

    10,365
    22
    Aug 2, 2003
    LOL. That's how it is in Britain, but they get the BBC in return. Tell you what broadcasters, you drop all commercials and give us BBC quality, and you can have your fee.
     
  3. Apr 22, 2014 #23 of 323
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,454
    167
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    I seriously doubt this will have any effect on TiVo or Sling. Those are individual devices intended for personal use. The broadcasters don't like Aereo because they are doing it on a large scale which could potentially threaten their rebroadcasting deals with MSOs and their blackout deals with the major sports leagues.
     
  4. Apr 22, 2014 #24 of 323
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Yeah, the fact that TiVo/Sling requires you to acquire your content through "legitimate" (quoted because IMO Aereo is legitimate) and doesn't really threaten any revenue streams. Plus, DVR and even Sling I think has been litigated to some extent.
     
  5. Apr 22, 2014 #25 of 323
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The networks are largely full of hot air. They are already giving the content away to OTA users, so giving it away to users with Aereo doesn't fundamentally change their business model. Even if they do pull stuff from the air, they are not going to just pull the whole station, but rather pull some of the signature shows and put them on cable channels while backfilling with syndicated content. However, that would just be continuation of the move of the good content to cable anyways.

    And how does it affect TiVo? It doesn't.
     
  6. Apr 22, 2014 #26 of 323
    rainwater

    rainwater Active Member

    7,057
    1
    Sep 21, 2004
    That really is the crux of the argument though. I don't think it would have any affect on TiVo at all because the Supreme Court seemed very aware of the ramifications according to their questions. My guess is if they shoot down Aereo's argument, they will be very limited in their scope. And since the TiVo Stream is in the hands of the owners, it isn't going to be affected.
     
  7. Apr 22, 2014 #27 of 323
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Fox tried to sue Dish over Sling when they put Sling in the Hopper, but it was tied to the commercial skipping as well. Sling technology has been out for quite a while and it never went to court. I think Sling-style placeshifting, which TiVo's implementation would fall under, is generally grandfathered into being OK. It's going to be tough to try to litigate something that has been in the marketplace for 7 years or so is all of a sudden illegal.

    However, the Aereo model is different. With a TiVo/Sling, you are always connecting to the same hardware. You bought the hardware. You paid for the TV subscription, or you are receiving the signal at your place of business/residence. With Aereo, you could possibly never be in the DMA where you're receiving the signal, you are "renting" the hardware, and probably the most damaging to Aereo, you don't necessarily get the same antenna and tuner every time. While I personally don't think Aereo is infringing, and it's silly to protect retrans fees for broadcasters who give their signals away for free, I'm not a lawyer, and the outcome may be bad for them but it won't affect TiVo.
     
  8. Apr 22, 2014 #28 of 323
    telemark

    telemark New Member

    1,544
    1
    Nov 12, 2013
    mcf57: Aero chose markets where the courts were expected to be friendly to their legality, which has worked out for them so far.

    They have green lights to operate in New York and Boston for now.

    They lost in the 10th circuit which means Denver and Salt Lake City had to be shutdown unless they have a higher court (SCOTUS) reverse it.

    The 9th circuit which has California, has sided with the big broadcasters against an Aero competitor called PlayOn. http://www.playon.tv/supported-devices
     
  9. Apr 22, 2014 #29 of 323
    mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,734
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    I'm not a sports person generally (I get addicted to the Olympics and some years watch the little league world series, that's about it)...

    But are you saying NFL Sunday Ticket simply shows the exact same games that are broadcast over the air? What does it do, show even ones that are locally blacked out?
     
  10. Apr 23, 2014 #30 of 323
    Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,454
    167
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    Sunday Ticket allows you to watch every single NFL game in the country. Normally there are blackout rules that prevent people outside the immediate area from watching certain games. So if you're a fan of a team that is not in your area Sunday Ticket is really the only way to watch every single game they play.

    Aereo technically forces you to use a credit card with a billing address in the area you subscribe, but people have found ways to fake that using PO boxes or prepaid cards that allow you to set te billing zip code. So someone in CA who's a Jets fan could subscribe to Aereo in NYC and be able to watch every Jets home game.
     
  11. Apr 23, 2014 #31 of 323
    telemark

    telemark New Member

    1,544
    1
    Nov 12, 2013
    Some of Aereo documents imply that once you leave the coverage area / city, something would no longer work.

    Is this not true?
     
  12. Apr 23, 2014 #32 of 323
    buscuitboy

    buscuitboy New Member

    736
    0
    Aug 8, 2005
    Atlanta area

    Actually, to take it one step further; I am in the Atlanta area and we were the 3rd market to be up and running with Aereo. I actually also had a 3 month free beta trial subscription to Aereo last summer & tried it. At one point, we went on vacation down in FL to see some family (St. Augustine area). I brought our iPad and thought I would try Aereo down there with my account & see if I could watch an NFL game.

    It initially said it was not available in my area (presumably because my ip address was coming from a FL location). However, it also stated that sometimes corporate firewalls can give false locations. It made me agree that I was truly in Atlanta and then allowed me to continue. Therefore, I was watching a Falcons game down in FL.

    I didn't really continue or watch it too much, but was more curious if it could be done. Now, who knows if they would have cut me off if I kept doing this continuously. I was only in the area for a few days and then returned home. I also never kept the subscription past the free 3 month trial.

    This example for me was over 9 months ago so not totally sure if its still this way and maybe it has changed or been corrected in recent months.

    I think it was a worthy service if you are looking to cut the cord and don't have a TiVo (since its also a DVR service). I guess we'll see what happens with the case and go from there.
     
  13. Apr 23, 2014 #33 of 323
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    It would if Tivo was more popular. Tivo has been shying away from OTA technology but if they were to push their OTA boxes, you can be sure the networks would come after them.
     
  14. Apr 23, 2014 #34 of 323
    mcf57

    mcf57 Member

    157
    0
    Oct 19, 2012
    GA
    I always thought it would be a great idea if TiVo would somehow incorporate (or even buy) Aereo. Could be a great addition to all their other available services (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, MLB, Youtube, etc.) and could really give people another big boost & reason to cut the cord, but also still use one box for everything.

    Of course, I am sure this could also risk their relationships with cable companies too so it could be a double edged sword in some ways. I am sure the majority of TiVo users subscribe to cable so I suppose you don't want to alienate that partnership too much. That and maybe they are waiting to see what happens with this case before they possibly move on anything related to Aereo.
     
  15. Apr 23, 2014 #35 of 323
    BobCamp1

    BobCamp1 Active Member

    1,347
    8
    May 15, 2002
    It can easily be limited in scope. Note that it doesn't matter who owns the equipment at all. It does matter if the receiving device is typically found in a residential home. So that's one thing protecting Slingbox. Aereo's setup in its entirety is not typically found in a residential home.

    But the other major thing protecting Slingbox is the number of retransmissions and the number of people involved. Aereo is retransmitting the content thousands of times to thousands of different people. A Slingbox only retransmits the content a few times to people who live within the same residence where the signal was originally received.

    The one thing protecting Aereo so far is that some courts don't think 10,000 private performances of the same content, where one party is the same for all 10,000 performances, constitute a public performance. But the end effect is the same as a public performance. Aereo is using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law -- it's a loophole. And one that can easily be plugged with legislation if needed (of course, with this Congress, nothing is easy).
     
  16. Apr 23, 2014 #36 of 323
    Grakthis

    Grakthis New Member

    828
    0
    Oct 4, 2006
    And heaven forbid that a federally protected monopoly funded by tax payer dollars should ever lose a nickle of revenues to the benefit of tax payers.
     
  17. Apr 23, 2014 #37 of 323
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,996
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    +1

    It should be legal to redistribute, rebroadcast, copy, etc. OTA broadcasts to any location as long as they are not modified, i.e., commercials are left intact and content is not edited. All this does is in effect increase the number of OTA viewers.

    I don't see why MSO's should have to pay retransmission fees. I think they just do it because it increases perceived value of their service and they can pass the cost right through to their customers. People paying $100/mo for cable or SATV see a lot of value in being able to get their local stations in the same service without having to set up an antenna and switch inputs.
     
  18. Apr 23, 2014 #38 of 323
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    What Aereo is doing is clearly not (technically) unlawful. As Justice Roberts said in his questioning, Aereo's "technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's, you know, lawyers do that." But the fact remains that they HAVE stayed within the bounds of the law.

    If it were just Aereo's business at stake, the networks wouldn't care. While Aereo's technology may work, it is difficult to scale, and not cost effective once you get down to smaller markets. What the networks are worried about is that EVERY satellite and cable operator could do the same thing. In fact, Dish Network did EXACTLY this several years ago when they started offering local broadcast channels. They put up antennas, connected them to their digital encoders and transmitted them to the uplink for distribution, all without paying the broadcasters. The result was that the law was changed and specifically said that any re-transmission of broadcast signals by satellite providers fell under retransmission consent rules. Today, Dish pays to retransmit the local channels.

    While retransmission fees may be ONLY 10% of network revenue, it is the one that is growing while advertising revenue is falling (partly due to DVRs, partly due to growing competition from the internet). If Aereo wins, ALL of this money (close to $3 billion today and projected to reach over $6 billion within 3 years) goes away.

    In the case of both Slingbox and Tivo Stream, all content fees have been paid. The content providers were paid by the cable company for the content before you got it. The fact that Tivo allows you to record it and play it back to a remote device doesn't bother the networks at all (in fact they might actually welcome it since skipping commercials over a remote connection is not as smooth as doing so at home). Also, there is not a service fee associated with the personal streaming devices, so the business model is different. You don't pay TiVo or Sling Media an subscription fee for the streaming capability, it is a pure technological solution. It is hard to argue that if Tivo Stream or Slingbox were not available, that the viewer would instead subscribe to a service that produces revenue to the content owner. In a copyright case, without a loss of revenue there can be no injury and so no basis for a lawsuit.
     
  19. Apr 23, 2014 #39 of 323
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    MSOs pay retransmission fees because the law says the can. The NAB lobbied for this provision and they won. Retransmission fees have replaced the ad revenue lost due to rate card erosion caused by ad-skipping DVRs and competition for advertising dollars from the internet.
     
  20. Apr 23, 2014 #40 of 323
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,996
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    :confused: You must mean because they have to, right? Why would they pay something just because they can?
    Skipping commercials with DVR's can happen with OTA-received video, also. I understand the NAB's desire for revenue but that doesn't make it either right or deserving of being codified in law or regulations. If maintaining NAB revenue is in the public interest it should be funded in such a way that all parties receiving the signals pay equally, not just MSO or Aereo customers. I suspect this just is a case of "let's get the money where it's easy to get", i.e., government funding of OTA is not popular so just sock it to the MSO and Aereo customers.

    I think NAB broadcasting should sink or swim based on the ad revenue they can attract.
     

Share This Page