“Controversial TV streaming startup Aereo said Saturday it’s shutting off its services after a Supreme Court ruling against the company’s methods dealt it a major setback from which it may not recover,” Sam Frizell reports for TIME Magazine.
“Aereo’s cloud-based antenna services will be inaccessible after 11:30 a.m. ET on Saturday. CEO Chet Kanojia told customers in an email that the shutdown would be temporary while the company determines how to proceed,” Frizell reports. “‘We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps,’ Kanojia said.”
“Aereo could theoretically return if it begins paying the broadcasters, but it’s not likely it can afford to do so without shifting that cost to its customers, who may be unlikely to pay more for a service that’s theoretically free,” Frizell reports. “The New York City-based startup said it will refund its customers for a month’s worth of subscription fees following its loss at the Court. ”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Remember now, you can legally do for yourself exactly what Aereo did, but Aereo can’t do it for you or something. One thing the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t, is infallible. That much is certain.
Read also: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The ‘Looks Like Cable’ Test Provides No Guidance – Techdirt, June 27. 2014
Related articles:
U.S. Supreme Court: Barry Diller’s Aereo violates copyright law – June 25, 2014
In Aereo Internet TV case, U.S. Supreme Court justices show concern – April 22, 2014
TV’s future is about to be decided by U.S. Supreme Court – April 17, 2014
US federal court suspends Aereo internet TV service in several states – February 20, 2014
By putting over-the-air online legally, Aereo clears the way for all TV everywhere – April 10, 2013
Apple is a winner in the Aereo online TV ruling, for now – July 12, 2012
This sucks! Another loss for the general public!!!
time to break out the attic antenna!
This I so half ass on the courts side
I’m willing to keep an open mind, but the way I see it, what they do sounds obviously illegal. They are repackaging copyrighted material, selling it for profit, without paying the copyright holders or even asking for their permission.
The only potentially confusing part about it is that they stream the copyrighted content live over the web. If instead, they were selling the exact same content on home made DVD’s, I think everyone would agree that it’s illegal.
I’m genuinely curious what the other side of the argument is. How could a service like this be considered legal?
Using your logic, OTA antenna manufacturers are breaking the law. They’re capturing signals and passing them to your TV, while making a profit on the product. And, every other company producing a component inside the TV is breaking the law, including the receiver, the display processor, the display, etc.
Not really the same. Because of the way the laws are written (not that I’m agreeing they are right), Aereo is adoul when it takes that signal, modifies it, and then sends it over the internet. They are in essence rebroadcasting the signal, where your antenna is simply capturing the signal (as intended by the broadcasters).
It sounds like semantics, but because of the way it is done, I expected this ruling.
Still sucks, though.
Gary, you are over analyzing the ruling. By law the broadcaster is required by the government to broadcast for free to the public, therefore has the copyright to it. The network/broadcaster recovers the transmission cost through placed adverts in the middle of the shows. If another party, in this case, Aereo, makes money through retransmission , the broadcaster has the right to a share of that profit. The networks have been asking form Aereo this share but it refused so this case was dragged up to the SC for final ruling. Every other third party , hulu, netflix, etc has paid the networks so there is no reason Aereo has to be exempt..
OTA antennas extend the reach of the broadcast signal, as do amplifiers in the signal chain. Each essentially rebroadcasts the signal to the next component in the signal chain.
Aereo provided an antenna service that permed the same function and extended the range of the broadcast signal.
The antenna manufacturer recovered their one-time cost at the point of sale, Aereo recovered their ongoing cost through a monthly fee.
Neither Aereo or the antenna manufacturer do more than extend the range of the TV signal and perform the same essential function, but Aereo does so in a modern way.
Wrong, but you just don’t get it.
You are rationalizing the easy way to look at something for your benefit.
Grammar fixed:
MacDailyNews Take: Remember now, you can legally do for yourself exactly what Aereo did, but Aereo can’t do it for you or something…….
… And still Amazon and google get away with screwing other companies and people !
Good job local broadcasters!
I now will not be watching any of your programs or the accompanying ads since I can’t get your channels through an antenna.
I will now go back to torrenting shows.
They don’t care what you do. They are in business to make money, not let someone else make a buck off their sweat and ruin their business model.
Once again for all the whiners; If Aereo can do this, then so can the cable companies, and broadcasters lose a LOT of revenue, affecting their programming.
So, figure it out. Do you want less to watch through your internet portal, or do you want the best that local broadcasters can afford in this shit-economy the Left has given us…?
Except now they aren’t making any money from me.
They could have by including me in their viewer numbers and used that for ad sales.
Now they get nothing from me and the others like me. I will not subscribe to a cable service because I do not want the bundled garbage(ESPN, home garden,e) and won’t pay for it.
They better figure out a new model soon as they are becoming irrelevant.