Hey, there! Log in / Register
Channel 5 sues TV-over-Internet company for copyright infringement
By adamg on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 7:24am
WCVB this week sued Aereo, which recently began a service to let people watch Boston TV stations, charging the company is ripping off the station's valuable local programming.
In its suit, filed in US District Court, WCVB says other companies that rebroadcast its programs do so only after paying a fee.
Aereo's service undermines the purposes served by the Copyright Act by exposing copyright owners such as WCVB to free-riders such as Aereo, who exploit existing works for their own commercial benefit without incurring the cost of creating or producing the protected work and who distribute and record that work without btaining the consent of the copyright holder or qualifying for a statutory copyright license.
Other distributors, including cable systems, satellite operators, and other telecommunications companies, obtain WCVB's consent before transmitting and distributing WCVB's local television broadcasts containing its programs. Aereo, instead, has chosen to intercept WCVB's programming and transmit and distribute it for commercial purposes without WCVB's consent and without qualifying for a statutory copyright license.
In fact, WCVB charges, Aereo is endangering the decades-old public-service requirement of TV broadcasting in America, by depriving the station of money it would otherwise use to produce local news and shows such as "Chronicle."
The TV station wants a judge to order Aereo to knock it off forthwith and to pay WCVB its court and attorney's costs.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 WCVB complaint | 0 bytes |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
For those not familiar with
For those not familiar with Aereo, they started out in New York, and won similar lawsuits there on the grounds that they merely rent an individual antenna to each customer, and that it's not appreciably different from those customers using home or apartment antennas. Now that Aereo has expanded their business, broadcasters are trying again, gambling that the federal courts here will decide differently than the ones in New York.
The broadcasters really are terrified of Aereo it seems, with higher-ups at Fox and CBS threatening to end national over the air broadcasts if this continues to be legal. They've only been getting payments from cable companies since the 90s, IIRC, but now rely on this source of income more than that from advertisements. If Aereo's service continues to be found to be legal, large cable companies may adopt it rather than pay to carry those channels.
All told, this seems to be an issue better dealt with by Congress than the courts, as it's really about future policy.
You can read the decision from the federal appellate court here: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/a...
Re-broadcasting?
First time I've seen this.
It appears they are RE-broadcasting the WCVB signal? I don't see how that can be legal. The antenna seems irrelevant, it would be the rebroadcasting of the signal.
There's gotta be more to it. Any info that isn't legalese?
No...
The antenna is the main piece. Each user gets a micro antenna of their own. Nobody shares one, so it's effectively using the Internet as a really long cable to your house. That's why it isn't rebroadcasting.
Time shifting?
"Re-broadcasting" sounds a lot like time-shifting, to me. That's the standard that exists after the Betamax ruling 30 years back. And if Aereo already convinced a New York court, it sounds like they've got a pretty decent shot at staying in business in MA.
The antenna's not irrelevant,
The antenna's not irrelevant, it's actually the whole point.
It's all detailed out in arcane archaic copyright and communications laws.
This:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-joh...
Is a great read on how the landscape became to be. It's pretty fascinating how the networks and cable companies kind of painted themselves into this corner.
Good link, thanks.
Good link, thanks.
It appears they are
It appears they are RE-broadcasting the WCVB signal? I don't see how that can be legal. The antenna seems irrelevant, it would be the rebroadcasting of the signal.
There's gotta be more to it. Any info that isn't legalese?
The legalese isn't as bad as you might think. And the antenna is central. By assigning one antenna per customer (they have zillions of teeny tiny but serviceable antennas), they manage to avoid the charge of rebroadcasting. To be more specific, at the risk of legalese, what the Copyright Act prohibits is, in this case, unauthorized public performance. Broadcasting or rebroadcasting is just a means of public performance. Private performances are not illegal, however, and don't require permission, payment, etc.
The issue is whether, by allowing customers to watch TV received on a rented antenna in their facility, and further communicated to a computer through the Internet, Aereo is publicly performing the shows (rebroadcasting) or whether the customer is privately performing the shows (watching). So far two different federal courts in New York have determined that Aereo isn't publicly performing anything as that is defined in the statute, because each customer only can see what's received on their own individual antenna. Nothing is shared, either simultaneously between multiple customers or at different points in time to different customers.
This means that Aereo's equipment is highly inefficient and redundant to accomplish the goal of letting people watch tv, but a more technically elegant way of doing it would run afoul of the law. Weirdly, some of the critics of Aereo say that because it is carefully designed to be legal, it must be illegal, since no law-abiding person would consult lawyers and follow their advice before doing something, I guess.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the info
I also found a pretty good explanation here.
I have a feeling this is a case where current law is too old and vague to apply to current technology and there will be more specific laws written. Just a guess. Interesting, though.
I like Aereo so far...
The quality is pretty good and I love the idea of a cheap cloud DVR. New York has thus far taken the stance that it's legal. I doubt WCVB or any of the others suing really expect to win in court, they're just trying to drain Aereo's funds before it really takes off.
Quibble
New York state didn't take the position that Aereo is legal; it was the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (which happens to be in NY). That Court and its decisions don't directly control Massachusetts federal courts, but it is an influential and respected Court of Appeals; WCVB will have a steep road to climb with this lawsuit.
I'm split. I get what they
I'm split. I get what they are saying, however, Aereo does give you an 'antenna' to stick some where (whether its snake oil or not has yet to be determined).
My only real argument is Aereo is essentially a CATV system (No, not CAble TV, Community Access TV), which was a precursor to modern Cable TV. Basically someone put a huge antenna somewhere, and then rebroadcast the signal via a private wire or a repeater based system. Usually these systems were free or extremely cheap (just enough charged for maintenance cost), and were more of a service for areas where TV reception was poor. No one complained. And yes, CATV systems still exist in the US, and yet broadcasters don't complain.
What's the difference?
I can plug in my TERK antenna and get WCVB for free. OR I can use Aereo and use it anywhere. Wouldn't WCVB want the exposure. If I'm watching their channel on Aereo on my phone while riding the T, I'm looking at their advertisers, which should make the station happy. Because I wouldn't be able to do this normally. hello.. more viewers.
Sounds like WCVB just wants a peice of the pie.
The difference is that Aereo
The difference is that Aereo has one physical antenna *per customer.*
The logic works like this:
Imagine you rent an apartment. You don't want to buy a Tivo, so you rent one, as well as rabbit ears. All of this is perfectly legal, right?
All Aereo does is all you to rent all of this from one company. None of it is shared with other customers, so there is not broadcasting/retransmission, and any "copies" made are covered under the betamax exemption.
This is a different model than the rebroadcasting that cable companies do, where they take one feed and send that single feed to multiple customer.
Wait a minute now
Aereo is threatening decades-old customs of broadcasting by broadcasting a station that doesn't want itself broadcast?
Aereo
Doesn't make any sense to me. Most people should have zero problems picking digital over the air TV transmission with a digital tuner. And the quality should be excellent.
Whatever.
No TV
For one, more and more people want to watch TV on their computers, phones, and other non-TVs.
I don't get Aereo as I don't see how they would be better then just buying cable or simply ignoring the local broadcast stations and local TV completely. But I fully agree that if WCVB is going to broadcast, letting anyone within range watch for free, then they can't complain when picks up that "free" signal and delivers it somewhere else. They are welcome to turn off their transmitter if they want.
Aereo offers value-added
Aereo offers value-added features like DVR and the ability to watch programming on a myriad of devices. That's really what you're paying for. It's not really marketed to someone that just wants to watch live, OTA TV on their home TV.
Could you throw up rabbit ears and get a Tivo? Sure, but it would cost more.
I thought the same. Until I
I thought the same. Until I realized that I dont own a TV, and would like to see some live events, like sports. Yes, I could buy a TV tuner for my laptop, but theyre a pain. Aereo would let me simply log on to watch, and let me do so from my phone or tablet as well.
I thought about subscribing for the confederations cup, but Univision streamed all the games online for free.
And yes, some people live in a place with bad reception and dont want to install a roof antenna.
anyone who lives in the brick
anyone who lives in the brick canyons of boston does not get good tv reception. the only channel i can get is 25 and it drops out every time a car goes by. i have no access to the roof so must use an indoor antenna. so for me it's the only choice, tho I still mostly watch netflix or amazon prime.
So, lets' see here
Company rebroadcasts Channel 5 programming, which is sent over the open, and public, airwaves for anyone with a receiver to intercept.
That means that Channel 5 winds up with a larger audience, who will also see their advertisers' messages. Larger audience means that Channel 5 can charge higher advertising rates.
So, what does Channel 5 do instead. They waste their time and money suing the company that's providing this larger audience for their programming.
Forgive me if I fail to see the logic here.
It's not that hard
Someone is (potentially) making money off of WCVB's stuff. As a rule, when you take someone else's stuff and get revenue from it, the other party doesn't take too kindly of it.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just echoing WCVB's sentiments.
Not really as a rule
Lots of companies take WCVB's stuff and make money off of it. I have a device, made by Samsung, that I paid a lot of money for, largely so I could watch programming from WVCB. It takes the WCVB signal, processes it, and turns it into lights and sound. If it couldn't access the WCVB signal, I wouldn't use it. It's called a television.
People can put an antenna on their roof, hook it to their TV, and get WCVB. They can hook the antenna to a DVR in their living room, and time shift it. They can hook the antenna to a sophisticated DVR, like a slingbox, and watch their DVR from anywhere. Aereo just moves the antenna and DVR from my house to their warehouse. It's still my antenna and DVR.
Receiving the signal is fine
Pretty snarky there, James.
It's not the receiving of the signal that's the problem because that's all for personal use. That has already been ruled OK. It's the rebroadcast of the signal and charging money for it that's the issue. Surely you can see that.
Yes, Aereo is pushing the legal envelope here which is why there will most likely be new laws enacted to define this area more precisely.
A broadcast sends a signal to
A broadcast sends a signal to multiple people. Aereo doesn't rebroadcast the WVCB signal any more than my living room DVR rebroadcasts the signal to my television. It takes one input signal and sends it to one user.
If WCVB wants to force people to pay for their content, they can do that. But not if they want to keep using the public airwaves for free.
Channel 5 isn't really
Channel 5 isn't really getting any more exposure. This is the first of Aereo and I signed up out of curiosity (thanks for the story Adam!) and it requires you to have a credit card associated with a Boston address so it's not like you can sign up to the NYC Aereo and see all the late night public access softcore clubporn they have there.