Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Aereo files for emergency aid, company is 'bleeding to death'

Aereo files for emergency aid, company is 'bleeding to death'
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 03:04 PM
Aereo is "figuratively bleeding to death," according to a court filing made last night by the Supreme Court-impacted Internet video service. The filing cites "staggering costs" that it is still paying to stay alive as a business entity while the court and the US Copyright Office debate if it should be treated like a cable company, as the Supreme Court alluded in its ruling against Aereo.

"Unless it is able to resume operations in the immediate future, the company will likely not survive," said the court filing made yesterday to the Manhattan US District Court less than five hours after the federal appeals court refused to grant Aereo an injunction permitting it to operate as a cable company.

Aereo provided thousands of micro antennas for recording individual programs unique to their subscribers, rather than using a single antenna and repeating content to every subscriber. However, the company did record a program once, and replayed that recording to multiple users. In the court's opinion, Aereo operated as if it was a cable company, and should be subject to the same requirement to obtain licenses for retransmission of content.

Supreme Court Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, and Sotomayor voted in favor of the decision, with Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. Aereo could opt to negotiate licenses for rebroadcast, but this would dramatically increase pricing to customers.

The US Copyright Office disagrees with the Supreme Court. It says that Aereo meets none of the wickets for rebroadcast licenses held by cable companies, as Aereo's Internet retransmissions of broadcast material "fall outside the scope of the Section 111 license." While this is bad news for Aereo, there is still some hope -- as the US Copyright Office will accept the filings "provisionally" as the case is still being debated by the courts.

The future of Aereo, and potentially the entire Internet video industry, has been jeopardized by the court's ruling and Copyright Office's denial of the ruling. The Supreme Court claims that despite the ruling, "given the limited nature of this holding, the Court does not believe its decision will discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies."
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Aug 5, 2014 at 02:46 AM. )
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 03:55 PM
Thieves get what they deserve, hopefully. Do it the right way next time. Follow the laws.
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 04:04 PM
You're not bothered by the Supreme Court saying that they should be treated like a cable company, and the US Copyright Office saying that they shouldn't be?
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 05:06 PM
"Thieves"? That's absurd. If they're thieves, then so is anyone with a TV aerial.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 05:20 PM
they gambled on a very "questionable" business model and lost period.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 06:01 PM
Shaddim, there is a marked and distinct difference in the way Aereo handles the broadcasts it receives and the way that regular consumers handle the broadcasts they receive over-the-air... and that difference is at the heart of the matter. Failing to acknowledge this difference or simply dismissing it as being the same as a home receiving over-the-air broadcasts is to demonstrate a lack of understanding about what's going on here.

One, single difference is that Aereo is, in essense, reselling the otherwise free broadcasts and trying to profit from them. If that doesn't make them completely different from a home receiving broadcasts via antenna, and it's but one mere example of a difference, then I don't know what does.
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 06:13 PM
Me, I'm just so happy to see a company correctly use the term "figuratively" rather than "literally" I could almost cry.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 06:45 PM
are you literally crying or figuratively crying?
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 07:47 PM
I don't want to install a literal antenna on my roof -- it would be very difficult. Therefore, I am willing to pay someone for the convenience of streaming those very same TV signals to me via the Internet that I would receive (as if I had a virtual antenna). For that figurative convenience, I would literally pay a small monthly fee. It seems fair to me. The networks would still get their market exposure (and thus, their income) for the advertising I have to endure and I get the local TV channels I want. Aereo provides a service that is not wrong -- literally or figuratively -- and I don't feel violates any licenses. It is a great concept.

The ONLY loser is the cable company who wants me to pay over $80/month for the Basic level of service (72 channels, I think), most of which I never watch. I don't want all those channels, but they don't give me that choice. Aereo does. For any media besides the local TV channels, I will watch via ROKU.

The only missing piece of this solution is Aereo's ability to provide what I could obtain myself. IF Aereo is able to convince all the regulatory entities that they should be treated like a cable company, I would also be good with that and pay a little extra monthly fee to cover the greedy networks' "protection" money -- provided Aereo is willing to provide ONLY the local channels I want. If they turn into another cable company with multiple channel packages, contracts, etc., then I'm gone. I'll be up on the roof installing an antenna.
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,