> The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting.
The internet is already a distribution system for entertainment. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA suing Youtube because people are posting funny videos of their cat on there. They're suing to keep the internet from being a distribution system for the entertainment they create.
> Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources.
Aereo didn't get sued for its technology. If they had been broadcasting their own content nobody would've cared.
Look at it another way: where is all the wonderful Kickstarter-funded, Creative Commons-licensed, torrent-seeded content that everyone is just dying to watch? There are zero legal hurdles to replacing the existing content industry if you can come up with a product people actually want.
If YouTube weren't afraid of being sued by the MPAA, RIAA, or TV producers, why would they remove allegedly infringing content and replace it with these claim notices?
The underlying issue is that broadcasters are creating an artificial scarcity to drive demand. I find that to be more unethical than exploiting a loophole.
Which makes the whole "copyright" argument in this case even more specious, IMAO. You're broadcasting your content, for free, into the air, for anyone who cares to listen. What gives the broadcaster the right to dictate where someone has to be physically located in order to receive the broadcast?
scarcity of option to format change, timeshifts, rebroadcasting, and choice.
Broadcast tv (discounting DVR's) has set times for set programs, and i do not want that - it was only recently that recording broadcast TV was made legal in australia (can't recall how long ago off top of my head).
The internet is already a distribution system for entertainment. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA suing Youtube because people are posting funny videos of their cat on there. They're suing to keep the internet from being a distribution system for the entertainment they create.
> Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources.
Aereo didn't get sued for its technology. If they had been broadcasting their own content nobody would've cared.
Look at it another way: where is all the wonderful Kickstarter-funded, Creative Commons-licensed, torrent-seeded content that everyone is just dying to watch? There are zero legal hurdles to replacing the existing content industry if you can come up with a product people actually want.