<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 July 2014 02:28, Gary Buhrmaster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com" target="_blank">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM, R. G. Newbury <<a href="mailto:newbury@mandamus.org">newbury@mandamus.org</a>> wrote:<br>
.....<br>
<div class="">> The customer got access to content which he would otherwise have received<br>
> for FREE.<br>
<br>
</div>Congress, in their 1976 overhaul of Copyright, changed<br>
the laws regarding OTA. The "Must carry" and<br>
"retransmission consent" alternatives were codified<br>
in the rules. Those changes in the law actually<br>
overruled a SCOTUS decision that would (today)<br>
have allowed Aereo to exist. You reap what you<br>
sow.<br>
<br>
The Aereo decision was one of those cases where<br>
SCOTUS appears to have deferred to the explicit<br>
will of Congress (SCOTUS sometimes has to discern<br>
the will of Congress (or the framers of the Constitution)<br>
based on words that never mean what you think they<br>
mean, and sometimes has had to make up the will of<br>
Congress and establish new public policy). As a<br>
matter of law, I think this decision was properly<br>
decided (and it was essentially 9-0 on the issue<br>
of whether Aereo was in violation, the dissents were<br>
just on how to decide between direct and indirect<br>
infringement). As a matter of good public policy,<br>
this decision is less good. But that is the fault<br>
of existing copyright law, not the decision itself.<br>
<br>
That (many of) the copyright laws predate current<br>
technology is not in dispute. That (many of) the<br>
copyright laws currently support existing business<br>
models is not in dispute. That changes should be<br>
made is not usually in dispute either. What changes<br>
should be made (i.e. whose ox to gore) is always in<br>
dispute. Given the money involved, any changes in<br>
laws are going to have to see a groundswell of public<br>
opinion. And such swells have a tendency to<br>
dissipate with a bit of time.<br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Sounds very much like the Optus TV now in Australia<br><br><a href="http://www.optuszoo.com.au/tvandvideo/optustvnow">http://www.optuszoo.com.au/tvandvideo/optustvnow</a><br>
<br><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/optus-to-shut-down-tv-now-after-losing-appeal-20120907-25ijm.html">http://www.smh.com.au/business/optus-to-shut-down-tv-now-after-losing-appeal-20120907-25ijm.html</a><br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Anthony<br></div></div>