TV scraper Aereo pulled off air in six US states after tellyco court injunction victory

I think we need to clarify a few things...

First, Aereo only offers to provide this service to you if you live in the same general broadcast area the signal is originating from. So if I live in Dallas (god forbid), I can't stream the local broadcasts from Chicago. Now, if I lived in Chicago and was traveling to Dallas, I could keep up with my local news (or the real issue, the various Chicago-area broadcasts of an NFL or MLB sporting event) by streaming them online to my laptop or tablet.

This is really a way for folks to get a clear signal of their locally-broadcast networks, which again, are broadcast for free (ad-supported, really) to anyone in the area with an antenna that can pick up the signal. And if you live in a very built up area or in an area that is a dead-zone, it can be hard to get that signal. And in today's world of digital signal, you can't watch a noisy signal and still see things with a snowy picture; it's all or nothing.

As far as ads, there is no difference between watching your local NBC affiliate over the internet, air, cable, or time-shifted. Today's ratings are based on numerous surveys that capture both in the moment viewing as well as same-day viewing (accounting for time-shifting).

I imagine that Judge Kimball's ruling will just become one more data point used by the Supreme Court when ruling on the matter (as they have already taken up the case). The federal appeals court where Aereo is based, New York, ruled in favor of Aereo, which resulted in the appeal to the Supreme Court. I believe other courts ruled in favor or Aereo as well, and this is the first loss they've suffered.

Wait for SCOTUS

I'll just wait for the Supremes on this one. I'm not too impressed with Kimball's idea of what's reasonable here, but let SCOTUS make the decision. That's their job; they and their country will have to live with the consequences.

Shooting themselves in the foot

I agree with the posters who think that Aereo is a win for the broadcasters. Of course, Orlowski and others point to the high prices Aereo currently charge and want a cut of it. But Aereo are charging what the market will bear. There is nothing to stop NBC or anyone else setting up a similar service -- the barriers to entry are not particularly high. Of course, once the legal situation is clarified, that is exactly what many competitors will do and Aereo's prices will fall, to be litle more than cost. The result will be that the networks gain more viewers and a few companies make a little bit of money out of it. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The supreme court should rule that as long as the service (content and ads) is not being modified in any way it is perfectly legal. And. while they are about it, they should kill the cable charges (unless the cable company is showing its own ads, in which case they should have to buy the content at commercial rates).

Here's the thing: I don't have cable TV..

But I have cable internet, so the cable comes into the house. Why doesn't the cable company provide me with free local TV stations? Because they charge for "basic service", namely, the retransmission of local signals that I can pick up off the air for free. Wait, isn't that exactly what Aereo is doing?? No, with Aereo you select one signal and watch that. With cable, all of them are broadcast to everyone. Obviously, what the cable cos. are doing is more illegal than Aereo.

Aereo expands the TV broadcasters' audience so it's good for them. But they cut into the cable companies' business, so very bad for them.

How is this theft?

Mr Orlowski seems to be confused on what is happening here and the differences between cable and over the air broadcasts.

First off, Cable companies receive the over the air broadcast and reformat / reallocate that channel into their system along with the cable-only channels then retransmit this down their cable/u-verse/fiber/satellite systems to their customers. This signal is then received by the customers' cable boxes. These are not TV tuners, they are cable receivers. The signal is not in its original format. They do this to add value to their cable channels. Customers don't want to have to switch back and forth between the antenna and cable box. It appears that most of these companies also get to add some of their own commercials into some channels.

With Aereo, the signal isn't being altered. You can only sign up if you live in that local broadcast area and could have received those signals at home if you had your own antenna. You pick the program you want to record. You are the only one able to watch the program.

How is this different from having your own antenna, tv and DVR/VCR? Is it because you are renting the antenna and recorder from someone else? If I went to an electronics store and rented a tv, dvr and antenna would that be illegal since the store is profiting from it?

Are they arguing that playing it back over an internet connection is rebroadcasting? Under this argument, it should be illegal to use a tuner card and Windows Media Player. To play it back, you must rebroadcast this in a format other than a television signal.

It seems like the root argument comes down to sour grapes. Why should Aereo be allowed to profit? Same way the guy you rented the antenna and DVR profited.