Hacker News Reader

Comment by digdigdag | Hacker News Reader

The battle may have been lost but the fact that Aereo became as successful as it was in the short time it existed is a step in the right direction.

Unless it's encrypted information, I find it absurd that the courts would side with the cable companies on what is essentially a beam of publicly accessible light.

View on HN

I'm sorry, I completely respect your opinion, but frankly any company that can "use" "free" data from the air and resell it much cheaper than, say, the $150 cable bill, is going to be successful. That doesn't make it lawful, or even good for content creators.

I know I hold a very unpopular opinion in this forum, but I think it's unwise to treat Aereo like some angel of free speech. The truth is, this is a for-profit company with investors hoping to make money. They make that money by shortcutting the existing distribution system and selling something very cheaply that they got for "free."

Is it good for consumers? In the short-term, it seems to be. People love the service as far as I can tell and it's cheap.

But in the long-term, I worry about a service that syphons money away from content producers (and distributors, to whom I'm less sympathetic) and puts it instead in their own pockets.

I simply can't wrap my brain around how content can be produced, grabbed for free, and - importantly - re-sold for profit. I do not think this is a "public demonstration" of work.

Finally, I think it's unfair, as some have, to claim that SCOTUS is a bunch of thieves in bed with Comcast on one hand, but heroic and commendable on another hand with regard to the warrant cell phone case. It may actually be — actually, now it is the case - that if you have an exception with the law, you will need to work to change it.

> any company that can "use" "free" data from the air and resell it much cheaper than, say, the $150 cable bill, is going to be successful.

OTA broadcasts are free for everyone. You do not have to pay $150 a month to receive them. Aereo did not offer HBO or AMC or other cable-only channels through their service.

To me, the only real issue at play was whether it is legal for a person in OH to receive OTA broadcasts from NY. And there may be some merit there: some of the local stations might possibly be funded in part by local taxes.

Why are you putting free in quotes? OTA television is completely free to consume.

Nobody is being undercut. Cable companies use most of that $150 to buy private content. Nobody is advocating for splicing into private wires and making copies.

We're in this weird situation where local TV companies tricked their distributor into paying them, even though they previously shouldered the costs of distribution themselves. I see that as the biggest injustice here.

>I simply can't wrap my brain around how content can be produced, grabbed for free, and - importantly - re-sold for profit.

Imagine a taxi that brings you to a free concert. There is nothing wrong with making a profit off of providing convenient access to something. That's what every ISP in the world does. They're not selling the TV shows. They're connecting you with the antenna that sends out free TV.

Many beams of publicly accessible light are regulated. You can't tape the Simpsons off the air and sell your own DVD box sets.

But I could sell you a VCR. I might even let you store it at my house since I have better reception than you. Wait, that would be illegal...

Nope, it wouldn't be. It's the reselling en masse that they have a problem with.

Right, how does all this impact the I-DVR that I rent to my "friend" for $10 in BTC each month, to defray the cost of my internet bill?

It would be interesting to see a decentralized Aereo make another go at this.

It's actually illegal to sell a VCR that does not honor the do-not-copy transmitted signal. The courts and legislature generally sanction the activity, not the tool.

This comment is a sterling example of the crazy attitude of many on Hacker News.

Those "beams of light" had to be created, administered and regulated in order to even exist.

It is absurd that you think created content is simply a "beam of light" that anyone can harness how they see fit. I guess the objects in your house are just clusters of publicly accessible carbon; after all your locks are just lumps of publicly accessible alloys.

Except that the particular beams of light being discussed are intentionally meant by the broadcasters as resources for the public as part of fulfilling their deal to license the spectrum that beams of light useful for TV happen in, since the spectrum is fundamentally a public resource (hence open to anyone), and the exchange of public spectrum comes only in return for public usable content.

It's not like the claim was about just any beam of light.

Right. I think that there's a big difference (legally and morally) between the beams of light passing between my cell phone an the cell tower, versus something that's being broadcast specifically so that everyone with an antenna can hear it.

That is true to a point. But the spectrum is only a public resource under specific conditions and Aereo has not met those conditions according to the law and legal institutions we have empowered to make those decisions.

I have read some of your previous posts and they are exceptionally well written.

However, I await the idiotic HN consensus about to be posted below this comment stating -

a. Judges are <insert slur> old men b. Old people don't understand technology c. Silicon Valley could solve the entire world if we just let it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com