[mythtv-users] aereo

[Dean Collins]

Anthony,

I followed both the Optus Now and the MyTVR cases in Australia.

Just when you think Australia is a reasonably sized evolved commercial market you see how the judicial system falls on the side of favorites…..




Cheers,
Dean

From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org [mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Giggins
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 11:39 PM
To: Discussion about MythTV
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] aereo



On 1 July 2014 02:28, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com<mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM, R. G. Newbury <newbury at mandamus.org<mailto:newbury at mandamus.org>> wrote:
.....
> The customer got access to content which he would otherwise have received
> for FREE.
Congress, in their 1976 overhaul of Copyright, changed
the laws regarding OTA.  The "Must carry" and
"retransmission consent" alternatives were codified
in the rules.  Those changes in the law actually
overruled a SCOTUS decision that would (today)
have allowed Aereo to exist.  You reap what you
sow.

The Aereo decision was one of those cases where
SCOTUS appears to have deferred to the explicit
will of Congress (SCOTUS sometimes has to discern
the will of Congress (or the framers of the Constitution)
based on words that never mean what you think they
mean, and sometimes has had to make up the will of
Congress and establish new public policy).  As a
matter of law, I think this decision was properly
decided (and it was essentially 9-0 on the issue
of whether Aereo was in violation, the dissents were
just on how to decide between direct and indirect
infringement).  As a matter of good public policy,
this decision is less good.  But that is the fault
of existing copyright law, not the decision itself.

That (many of) the copyright laws predate current
technology is not in dispute.  That (many of) the
copyright laws currently support existing business
models is not in dispute.  That changes should be
made is not usually in dispute either.  What changes
should be made (i.e. whose ox to gore) is always in
dispute.  Given the money involved, any changes in
laws are going to have to see a groundswell of public
opinion.  And such swells have a tendency to
dissipate with a bit of time.

Sounds very much like the Optus TV now in Australia

http://www.optuszoo.com.au/tvandvideo/optustvnow

http://www.smh.com.au/business/optus-to-shut-down-tv-now-after-losing-appeal-20120907-25ijm.html
Cheers,
Anthony
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20140703/6c239703/attachment.html>