- - - - - - - -
>>
- - - - - - - -
>> I'm conflicted on this one. I can understand why the broadcasters are upset. They are putting in millions of dollars to produce shows and sporting events. To recoup some of this expense they charge advertisers for air time to peddle their products. Now here comes this company that hasn't invested a thing in the production process nor has paid fees to rebroadcast the content, yet they are making a profit from it.It's akin to getting into your neighbors Wi-Fi network and resending the signal to a third party at a profit. On the other hand people fear any regulation of Internet content will be the opening salvo of increased cost for access and limited options if companies are force to pay copyright fees.It'll be interesting to see how the supreme court rules on this.
@rocket: I can see that point of view...but take it a different direction on it.One could spend $20 (just an example) to purchase an antennae and get the channels for free. Â The broadcasters are completely fine with this. Â What if I told you for $8 a month, you can use my antennae and not only get it on your TV but your mobile devices as well. Â It is the same antennae just not limited to your tv. Â What difference does it make where the antennae is...the signal is free and designed that way by the FCC. Â No laws are broken just a lot of butthurt because the broadcast companies are not doing it.Tech is changing to match how we consume our information. Â If the broadcast companies dont jump on board they are doomed to fail. Â Examples...Blockbuster, Virgin Record Store.The biggest issue the broadcasters have is they cannot accepted the loss in profits.
@IBertrand: I can see your point of view as well. As I said I'm conflicted. If the supreme court rules in the broadcasters favor I doubt Aereo will go away. They will have to pay the networks rights fees and unfortunately pass the cost on to the consumer. Interesting case in that what happens here will have a major impact in regards to Internet content now and in the future.
@rocket: the difference is that the broadcast caught by your antenna comes complete with commercials which is what pays the broadcasting company. if you like watching xyz, you have to tolerate 15 minutes of crap per hour to watch it. now if aero broadcasts that without commercials, there is a change in what you are able to view. and either way, your eyeballs are not counted as a viewer for the network which skews the ad rates for the commercials downward. it is much the same as as clicks for the internet that pay for 'free sites'
4951