back to article Telly bigwigs try to close down Aereo streaming service - again

A US appeals court has refused to rehear major broadcasters' arguments for temporarily shutting down TV streaming service Aereo while another court decides whether or not it's legal. The telly bigwigs, including Disney's ABC and NBC Universal, have been trying to get the online TV service banned on the basis that it infringes …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Paul Dx
    Thumb Down

    And if they fail in court ...

    you can be damned sure that ABC, NBC et al will be making the appropriate election contributions to get the law changed to their liking.

    1. Martin 47

      Re: And if they fail in court ...

      But it's only popular because those watching it don't understand what's good for them.

    2. phytodoc

      Re: And if they fail in court ...

      I believe you said contribution when the appropriate word is actually "Bribe".

      1. Fatman

        Re: And if they fail in court ...

        I believe you said contribution when the appropriate word is actually "Bribe".

        That depends on whose interpretation you use, that of the politician (it is a campaign contribution) or that of the average Joe Sixpack (it's a fucking bribe).

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You would think this would be a clue...

    You'd think the popularity of this service would be a clue to the likes of NBC that offering a better streaming service of their own would make money (Hulu was a not terrible start, but has since gone the wrong way).

    1. Arthur 1

      Re: You would think this would be a clue...

      If these guys were around 150 years earlier, we'd all be paying a 'horse and carriage' tax equal to 20% of the price of our car while they produce a single perfunctory horse-drawn buggy a year and spend the rest of the time counting the proceeds of questionable wealth redistribution.

      If your model sucks, don't innovate, get the government to put de facto guns to people and force them to support you!

  3. anger


    Commercial TV stations earn most of the money from advertising. Thanks to Aereo their broadcast can reach more people, hence their advertising revenue should benefit from it.

    But Aereo is making money out of it and broadcasters don't get a cut. So screw bigger reach and bigger ad market, we're going to destroy you, unless you pay us!

    1. beast666

      Re: money

      The advertisers are already paying Aereo directly, shirley? If not why not?

    2. David Kelly 2

      Re: money

      I think "anger" got it mostly right. Broadcasters have to pay for programming based partially on the number of viewers. They sell advertising based on the number of viewers. But advertisers don't want to pay for channel-skipping DVR viewers while content providers do expect to be paid for those.

      Plus we have the socialist redistributionist tradition of letting broadcast sources charge CATV systems for use of their signal. So broadcasters have come to expect the privilege of putting their hand in everyone's pocket. Sadly the early days of CATV didn't have a Charlie Ergen who was willing to say "NO" to broadcasters.

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Alan Esworthy
    Big Brother

    arrogant judge

    Judge Chin's arrogance is showing. If a piece of legislation is flawed it is the job of the legislative body that crafted it in the first place to fix it. Each and every judge, heck, each and every individual, can make up his own idea of the "spirit" of a law but there is no authority to appeal to for saying just what that spirit is save the legislators who wrote it and voted for it. Chin's job is to hear evidence for and against the proposition that some party has violated a law or has damaged another party, not to impose his own creative view of what the law should mean.

    1. Tomato42

      Re: arrogant judge

      shush, shush, that's just crazy talk

  6. zaax

    Stop watching TV and they will go away.

    1. Mr Young
      Thumb Up


      Every time I find myself wanting to buy a great TV the thought of adverts soon stops that idea - even having to press a button on the remote to skip them pisses me off

      1. Fatman

        Re: Indeed

        even having to press a button on the remote to skip them pisses me off

        I wish some enterprising chap would create a mechanism that detects when a commercial is being broadcast, and then blank both the video and audio for 30 seconds.

        That skilled fucker would make a mint.

  7. KenJ

    "Commercial TV stations earn most of the money from advertising."

    The problem is that in the US, commercial OTA broadcasters make a significant amount of revenue from mandatory payments by cable TV systems. If the OTA stations allow Aereo to exist, the exclusivity value they can extract from the cable companies drops and they receive less revenue in that channel. Worst case, the cable companies adopt the same scheme and don't pay local stations anything.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      While true about the broadcasters, many of the stations are not owned by the network (i.e. Disney, NBC, etc.) and actually they have gone on record stating that they hate the broadcast method as it loses money. The cable TV channels do far better at revenue than their broadcast counterparts. So in reality, NBC, Disney, etc. are only doing this because their broadcasters are bitching and moaning. If Avreo succeeds are not, the networks really don't care. If the broadcast stations went under, the networks would still exist and could just sell their "station" to the cable companies and such directly.

      1. Killraven

        It's an interesting bit of semantics. For most people the example of Broadcast vs Cable means that Broadcast "makes less money" where for the whinging bean-counters they say it "loses money".

  8. FuzzyTheBear

    Looking down ..

    There was a time we used to look up to the USA for inspiration .. Wow .. Did things ever change or what ! .. Now we look down upon it as the example not to follow . It slid and slides down the never ending spiral staircase. When money buys politicians , you know there's no democracy. When people try to interfere with othger businesses bscause they have an idea they didn't have you know the moral fiber of the place is gone to the dogs.

    We had so much examples as of late that visiting the place is the last on the list after visiting the war zone of Afghanistan. What a pity. It's not just one event , it's the never ending succession of news and events. I pity the People to have to live in such a mess. Their system is as bad as it gets. Political . patent, copyright , spying the list is too long for a post. This is just one more of the symptoms of a society that's gone to the dogs. We used to look up to them .. we're now looking down. Hell life's good in Canada :)

    1. cosymart

      Re: Looking down ..

      Shouldn't that be: Hell, life's good in Canada? :-)

    2. Arthur 1

      Re: Looking down ..

      Are we really any better off in Canada? If the CRTC were involved these guys would already be serving life sentences without trial, and the proceeds of their fines would be put into research on giving Ted Rogers a blowjob through his coffin.

    3. et tu, brute?

      Re: Looking down ..

      > When money buys politicians...

      Show me one country in the so-called democratic world where politicians are not bought... doesn't exist!

      It may be more under wraps in some countries, but what do you think lobbying actually is? Isn't it just a fancy word for buying favours from politicians? And there are lobbyists in every nook and cranny...

  9. John Brown (no body) Silver badge


    "In my view, however, the system is a sham, as it was designed solely to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law,"

    That sounds oddly familiar. Change "Copyright Act" for tax laws and talk about big international companies such as, oooohhh, Disney, Apple, MS, Google, Starbucks et al and how does it sound now Mr Disney ABC?

  10. Justicesays

    The truth is more like...

    "its system of thousands of tiny antennas and unique copies designed to render these transmissions private".

    "In my view, however, the system should be unnecessary, as it was designed solely to meet the requirements of an outdated and non-intuitively interpreted Copyright Act, but this is the only way of meeting the now onerous interpretations of that law," he said.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021