Antenna v. Aereo

This has been on my mind for a while, and while I've talked to a few people about it, I haven't really said anything here. If you aren't familiar with the case here is a quick summary. Aereo is an upstart tech company that provides a service which allows viewers to view local broadcast television in their homes. It does this by using a small antenna at a central location to receive over the air (OTA) TV signals and then streams them via a broadband connection to the users home. How can they stream someone else's content without paying re-transmission fees you ask. Aereo houses an antenna for every user. Meaning they aren't simply rebroadcasting, but rather they are leasing equipment. The lessee decides when and how to use that equipment.

In 1984 Universal Studios sued Sony over their Betamax video recording device. Sony won. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to record television programming for the last 30 year. Likewise, you wouldn't be able to use DVR services like Tivo and Hopper. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I probably wouldn't watch much TV at all if I had to watch it at the time it was broadcast. Maybe that would make it a better world. People wouldn't watch so much damn TV... That, however, isn't the point here. The point is that while the producers own the content, they don't own my time, my home, my TV, my antenna, or my internet service (well in some cases the producers like Time Warner, may produce content, and own cable broadband services, but I pay for those things separately and unless they want to start including free cable with my internet at the same price, then they can't claim that one depends on the other).

Functionally, Aereo's system is similar to an antenna, a tuner, and a VCR. The fact that it is in a remote location is no more relevant than the difference between a Walkman cassette player and an iPod that is streaming music from iTunes. These are all private performances where copyright law is concerned. Aereo even takes it's limitations on technology a step further. While they could allow users to access any antenna from anywhere in the country, they do not. The restrict users to a single zip code and allow users to access only channels which area available in that area. The broadcast companies, of course, completely ignore this fact. Even if you don't plan to use Aereo, this case could affect you. Should Aereo lose, you may not longer be able to use your DVR, VCR, or other "time-shifting"/recording equipment.

For a more in-depth understanding of this case read the links below. This is important to anyone who cares about copyright. Not just for television, but for copyright in general. Private performance rights are protected under fair use, but if they are to remain that way, Aereo needs to win this case. Technology can confuse this issue since it is almost always impossible for lawmakers to predict how laws they create today will affect technology that is invented tomorrow, but copyright is about encouraging innovation by protecting innovators from the theft of intellectual property. It is not about preventing consumers and potential innovators from accessing that intellectual property unless the pay absolute top dollar.

Here is an analogy that I came across the other day which I believe applies here. Programmers who by the nature of their work create intellectual property. Programmers are paid when they create their programs. Other programmers build on those older programs to make them better or useful in new ways. Programmers do not receive royalties, and do not expect to receive royalties, in perpetuity.

Similarly, teachers share intellectual property, sometimes of their own creation, with their students. They do not charge their students every time the student applies some bit of knowledge s/he learned in a teacher's classroom. Why then does Hollywood believe that every time someone sees a small bit of something they created (I use that term loosely by the way considering that they often borrow plot lines and themes from other stories) is viewed or even referenced? I'll leave you to form your own opinion from here...

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/30/broadcasters-advertisers-watch-aereo-case-closely/
https://aereo.com/
http://www.solidsignal.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-461_resp_amcu_36ipclp.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/