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. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    There's no point in arguing. Bicker is convinced he is right and no one is going to be able to change that. :p
     
  2. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    This is the entire crux of the argument. That the "entity that received the OTA broadcast" is the customer, not Aereo. That effectively they are leasing you a facility and YOU are the one doing the receiving, recording, and "retransmitting".

    I mean, how would this be any different from renting space in a colocation facility and putting my own Aereo or Slingbox in? Someone else is still making money off it, and I still have exclusive access to the signal.

    Also, there's a lot of folks in this thread stating very definitively what the law is or isn't, or what is or isn't retransmission, but if any of you were actually right this case wouldn't be at the Supreme Court. You may ultimately be proven right, but right now whether or not this is legal or not is not settled.
     
  3. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    7,111
    54
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    LOL. But since the argument is public it still matters.
    Hmmm..... not the way it looks to me. My impression is a cadre of top administration leaders, and Democrats in Congress, who want a nanny state plus most other government workers who just want a paycheck and job security, with those factors being much more important than what they're doing (or not doing) to get them. That's human nature of course but in the government poor performance or unneeded programs can continue rather than being weeded out, as they are in private enterprise.
     
  4. zalusky

    zalusky Well-Known Member TCF Club

    5,353
    78
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    Seriously! Government is at its lowest head count in decades. Most of the remaining unemployment right now is from government workers who have been let go. At the same time consolidation is rampant in the corporate America. We used to have lots of babybells and cable companies.
    Now there is Comcast/Verizon/DTV/ATT with a small smattering of others who control media distribution. They are getting as big as government.

    The FCC pretty much lets everything through these days(Net neutrality going down the drain is a good example). The Supreme Court pretty much lets Corporate America do what it wants.

    There aren't many cases these days where the nanny state as you puts it tries to even enforce a level competitive playing field in Corporate America. Compare today to the 1980s and today is much much more free market in the way business works.
     
  5. Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,663
    48
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Yes, this is exactly what I said a couple of pages back...there is no definition of what does or does not constitute "retransmission." Therefore it falls to the court to rule on each case.
     
  6. Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,663
    48
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    So, having a "dedicated" antenna is what makes this not "retransmission?" Why is that different than sharing one large antenna? If the rest of the chain is just an extension of my personal use, then that antenna is a community antenna, which has been ruled to be not a retransmission.
     
  7. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL

    I think they are banking mostly on the courts focusing on whether or not the signal is "copied", not "retransmitted", since that is a much easier concept for them to wrap their heads around. And, by giving everyone their own distinct antenna instead of "splitting" the signal from a master antenna, they are hoping that is distinct enough from cable TV (especially the origins of cable TV, MATV) and will seem like it's not "copying"
     
  8. CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Forum Denizen

    2,610
    3
    Jan 13, 2005
    SoCal
    Isn't one of the features of a community antenna that the broadcasts are not modified in any way, such as no insertion of advertisements?

    It seems to me that Aereo is trying to be something of a community antenna in some ways, it is just that they are not restricting their viewers to being those for whom the OTA signal is blocked by geographical features. They also do not add any other content like cable companies do.

    A shared community antenna does have a one to many relationshop though. Each individual subscriber has no control over what comes down the wire to him. He gets it all, whether he uses it or not. With Aereo the subscriber only gets what he specifically sets up himself/herself. That is probably a significant difference.
     
  9. slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    3,702
    101
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL
    Just stop please with the stupid political stuff, it has no place here and has no good ending.
     
  10. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,419
    47
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    That's like saying that McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs.

    All the alternative burgers are something that's not a Big Mac.

    Monopolies are based on the commodity. The commodity - long-established by government action - is "subscription television service".

    There's no point in arguing because bicker is right. Folks are trying to argue that they themselves are a "market" and that the law applies to whatever commodity they specifically want it to apply to, no matter how specific they choose to make the definition of the commodity. It is ridiculous the depths some people in this thread are diving to try to rationalize misusing a loaded word like "monopoly".
     
  11. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,064
    160
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Correct and why I haven't bothered to try and figure out if what they are doing is legal or not. The more interesting conversations (at least in my mind :)) are what it means once SCOTUS makes their decision.
     
  12. lessd

    lessd Well-Known Member

    7,809
    31
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    Whatever way the SC goes on this what does this have to do with TiVo, IE: the title of this Thread, TiVo is not sending signals out of the home to the general public nor asking the public to pay for any signals that do go out of your home (Sling-box is OK as it is just for your home or the people in your home, but it is IMHO used in a non legal way, as I know people that have a kid in NYC and the kid puts a sling box in their parents home to get some sport events that are blocked in the NYC area, I assume that is not legal.)
     
  13. Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,663
    48
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    No, it is the demodulation, decoding, re-encoding, and remodulating the signal that makes it different. A community antenna is just a way to get the radio signals to the tuner when the tuner is inside an apartment building or other situation where an individual antenna is impossible. What is delivered is pure, full band feed of all received signals. The only processing is passing through amplifiers that just compensate for attenuation.

    As I've said before, my opinion is that Aereo crossed the line and is a retransmitter. But that is just my opinion. Anyone else here is entitled to their opinion. However, your opinion, my opinion and most other people's opinions don't matter. The only opinions that count are the ones held by the Justices of the Supreme Court.

    I was trying to avoid any specific language like "retransmission." In this case "manipulate" was used to cover any form of altering the received signal, whether by filtering, demodulating, or any other process. Sorry you take exception.
     
  14. Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,663
    48
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    First, cable companies are not monopolies, they are (in most areas) exclusive franchisee holders. The reason there is usually only one cable operator in an area is because state and municipal governments chose to grant exclusive franchises to cable operators. The deal was that in return for stringing the wire and building the head-ends, the cable companies got an exclusive right to sell bundled services. It took months for Verizon, for example, to get the permission to string fiber optic cable in New Jersey. They had to, at first, negotiate with each municipality for permission (ultimately, they got a statewide franchise from the state legislature). So if you want more options, the people to talk to are your state and local and local representatives.

    Second, offering HBO to viewers without a subscription via a cable company is not even on HBO's radar screen. That would require a massive investment in billing, marketing and customer service, far in excess of what they have in place today. They have already spent large sums of setting up streaming access - the last thing they want to do is follow that up with more spending on retail operations, when neither have any prospect of increasing net revenue.
     
  15. Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,663
    48
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Yes, a Slingbox used in that way is a violation of the terms of most cable and satellite subscription agreements, and ultimately a violation of copyright law.

    The SCOTUS decision in this case COULD impact "out of home" streaming via devices live Slingbox or Tivo Stream, depending on how widely it is written. If they are not careful, it could have very far reaching consequences.
     
  16. eboydog

    eboydog Just TiVo'ing.....

    904
    0
    Mar 23, 2006
    I never imagined this topic would draw so much enthusiasts however I started this without really understanding what the technical aspect that Aereo is doing and misunderstanding the legality issue that is being argued, the only aspects that caught my eye was the recording of local OTA content to DVR device and streaming that content back to subscriber to their mobile device which with all things considered IS the same as what Tivo accomplishes with the Stream when a Tivo subscriber doesn't have a cable service subscription.

    If you bought a 4 tuner Roamio, set it up to receive OTA only, then used a TiVo Stream to play that OTA content to your Apple iPad, will that remain legal if the court rules against Aereo?

    I suspect the corporations will "buy" justice and Aereo content will be considered a retransmitted content requiring them to enter into a contract and pay the broadcasters their blood money but it doesn't make it right. Then what's next, the government requiring me to register my OTA Tivo because I too can redistribute the received content off the air and to my iPad?

    How is this different if I pay Tivo to stream Ota or if I pay Aero to?
     
  17. Bigg

    Bigg On the fence to being a cord-cutter.

    5,707
    57
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    No. The law is very clear that it's legal. The letter of the law is extremely clear, and Aereo designed their system to comply with the letter of the law. The SCOTUS will either decide to continue following the law, as it is written, or they will show extreme bias. The Obama administration has already shown extreme bias by siding with the broadcasters instead of the law.

    The networks have extremely powerful lobbyists and lawyers. That's the only reason that there is any question about this. And unfortunately, I think the law will lose, and the broadcasters will win.

    If they each have their own antenna, that's legitimate. That's how the law is written. And TiVo has monthly service fees (in theory anyways, even though Lifetime makes way more sense), so the only differentiation left is the physical location that the de-modulation is taking place, which is an absurd deciding factor.

    The whole concept of "retransmission" makes absolutely no sense in the first place. So the idea that the law making a differentiation between multiple antennas and splitting the signal via RF or an IP multicast network shouldn't be shocking.

    The differentiation between a community antenna and a cable company is also extremely arbitrary, and hence the problem with the whole concept of "retransmission".

    This is the problem, they are basing the distinction solely on location.
     
  18. lessd

    lessd Well-Known Member

    7,809
    31
    Jan 23, 2005
    CT
    I assume that TiVo streaming will not in itself be a paid service to 3rd ptys. If you have the right to watch something in your home than the Sling box/TiVo streaming outside your home I guess is OK or Sling Box itself will be out of business, If TiVo had to stop streaming out of the home I don't think it would put TiVo out of business as that not the main reason most people purchase a TiVo. I don't care about TiVo streaming but I don't know what % would give up or not purchase a TiVo if TiVo had to turn off their out of home streaming. Without, out of the home streaming, the Sling Box has no purpose at all.
     
  19. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,400
    7
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    But you're convinced that what Aereo is doing qualifies as something which is not yet legally defined?
     
  20. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,400
    7
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC

    Comcast is a BK Whopper, TWC is a Big Mac, and Charter is whatever Hardee's is pushing these days, but of my alternatives to cable, satellite is a hot dog and DSL is a fish sandwich. If I want a hamburger, I'm stuck with the Big Mac.
     

Share This Page