Fox Uses Aereo’s Ruling to Attack Dish's Mobile Streaming Service

That didn’t take very long did it? Fox is wasting little time to take advantage of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court to shut down streaming service Aereo in its case against Dish Network.

Dish, which engages in virtually identical conduct when it streams Fox’s programming to Dish subscribers over the internet – albeit also in violation of an express contractual prohibition – has repeatedly raised the same defenses as Aereo which have now been rejected by the supreme court.

Click to expand...

So Aereo took OTA transmissions, and retransmitted them. Dish, who literally pays Fox for the right to retransmit, is getting bitched out for retransmitting?

sfsuphysics said:

So Aereo took OTA transmissions, and retransmitted them. Dish, who literally pays Fox for the right to retransmit, is getting bitched out for retransmitting?

Click to expand...

It's a twisted game of control. Dish pays retransmission fees, but Fox says their contract doesn't cover internet retransmission, so they want Dish to pay them another fee for that retransmission. The cablevision ruling is also in jeopardy because of the Aereo ruling. That one basically said, it didn't matter where your DVR is located as long as the DVR was that user's alone so no retransmission was being done, the Aereo system used that ruling to craft their business saying it didn't matter where your TV antenna was located as long as that antenna was the user's alone. Apparently the court can't get their mind around the fact that the two systems are built exactly the same. This will definitely have to go through the court system yet again to clarify which ruling is the valid one. No matter what the outcome is, all you can really expect is that you're going to pay more out of your pocket.

But but... the supremes said the cloud wasn't in any trouble by their ruling!

Fundamental difference is that with Dish, the retransmission is done by the END USER. Dish bought Sling and put it in their boxes. The ruling by SCOTUS was that a middle-man couldn't retransmit the broadcast.

Time to watch the domino pieces fall and guess where the chain stops.

Spidey329 said:

Fundamental difference is that with Dish, the retransmission is done by the END USER. Dish bought Sling and put it in their boxes. The ruling by SCOTUS was that a middle-man couldn't retransmit the broadcast.

Click to expand...

Indeed and Dish already pays Fox for the transmission rights when Aereo didn't. Yet Fox is now grumbling about going after Dish despite this distinction and the Cablevision DVR ruling.

Of course, Aereo designed itself to transmit on the request of the end user but that didn't stop the court from ruling from a feeling of "he looka like a cable company" instead of letter of the law.

Ranulfo said:

But but... the supremes said the cloud wasn't in any trouble by their ruling!

Click to expand...

They stated cloud storage wasn't in any trouble. IE drop box, one drive, and other services where the user uploads their own files personally and stores them.

Ranulfo said:

Indeed and Dish already pays Fox for the transmission rights when Aereo didn't. Yet Fox is now grumbling about going after Dish despite this distinction and the Cablevision DVR ruling.

Of course, Aereo designed itself to transmit on the request of the end user but that didn't stop the court from ruling from a feeling of "he looka like a cable company" instead of letter of the law.

Click to expand...

Dish pays for transmission rights of a certain type. If I rent you a room in my basement that doesn't give you full right to do whatever you want with everything in my house and take ownership of my house. You just rent that one room. So in that regards if the terms state that their fee only covers retransmission via sat service and that any digital retransmission requires an additional fee then Dish is in the wrong. I know that onDemand service by the carriers isn't included in the normal agreement and they have to pay extra in order to transmit onDemand videos. Whether or not that is an asshole move by the broadcast companies isn't up for debate. However if that is their terms then anyone that agrees to them for transmitting their service has to follow them. This is the same BS that Netflix has been fighting for years that causes them to have to keep raising prices.

Spidey329 said:

Fundamental difference is that with Dish, the retransmission is done by the END USER. Dish bought Sling and put it in their boxes. The ruling by SCOTUS was that a middle-man couldn't retransmit the broadcast.

Click to expand...

There is little legal difference between doing something yourself and hiring an agent to do it for you.

The Aereo ruling is far more catastrophic to cable cutters and cable alternatives than shutting down one particular service. The dissenting judges were correct.

Exavior said:

Dish pays for transmission rights of a certain type. If I rent you a room in my basement that doesn't give you full right to do whatever you want with everything in my house and take ownership of my house. You just rent that one room. So in that regards if the terms state that their fee only covers retransmission via sat service and that any digital retransmission requires an additional fee then Dish is in the wrong.

Click to expand...

Your example is flawed. This is more akin to you renting me a room in your house, but won't let me enter or leave via the only door because I have to cross through your living room. You might be able to tell me that I need to take my shoes off before I can go into the living room, but you can't deny me access to the room I am renting. That is what the cablevision ruling basically did. It made it clearly legal that because the user recorded it and stored it they could access it where ever they are and it did not count as a rebroadcast from cablevision. Dish's sling essentially works the same, the end user wants access to the data stream dish is providing that they paid for and dish paid retransmission fees already for, but Fox is claiming internet streaming is not covered, even though Dish is not retransmitting it (via the cablevision ruling), the user is accessing the data they paid for via the internet using the slingbox protocol.

sfsuphysics said:

So Aereo took OTA transmissions, and retransmitted them. Dish, who literally pays Fox for the right to retransmit, is getting bitched out for retransmitting?

Click to expand...

A DVR (any DVR practically speaking) takes a "transmission" and "retransmits" it.

What Aereo did was allow storage of copyrighted works on the cloud for future retrieval (retransmission).

Btw, any cloud based backup backs up tons of copyrighted works for future retrieval (retransmission).

The cloud is definitely at risk due to the SCOTUS lack of understanding.

LurkerLito said:

Your example is flawed. This is more akin to you renting me a room in your house, but won't let me enter or leave via the only door because I have to cross through your living room. You might be able to tell me that I need to take my shoes off before I can go into the living room, but you can't deny me access to the room I am renting. That is what the cablevision ruling basically did. It made it clearly legal that because the user recorded it and stored it they could access it where ever they are and it did not count as a rebroadcast from cablevision. Dish's sling essentially works the same, the end user wants access to the data stream dish is providing that they paid for and dish paid retransmission fees already for, but Fox is claiming internet streaming is not covered, even though Dish is not retransmitting it (via the cablevision ruling), the user is accessing the data they paid for via the internet using the slingbox protocol.

Click to expand...

Actually even your example us flawed as it would be more like there are two doors into the room and I only let you use one unless you pay me extra for a key to the second door. They are not refusing to let them transmit period, just saying that only one method is supported and additional ones cost more. Which I personally don't agree with, but if that is in the terms that was signed off on then you have to do what you say when you sign off

cjcox said:

A DVR (any DVR practically speaking) takes a "transmission" and "retransmits" it.

What Aereo did was allow storage of copyrighted works on the cloud for future retrieval (retransmission).

Btw, any cloud based backup backs up tons of copyrighted works for future retrieval (retransmission).

The cloud is definitely at risk due to the SCOTUS lack of understanding.

Click to expand...

It just isn't. I don't know where all this SCOTUS cloud paranoia is coming from.

What Aereo did wasn't just storing recordings. They acted as the provider for the TV signals. That's the difference. When you use OneDrive, or DropBox, or even a TV focused cloud storage company YOU are providing the content. Aereo got in trouble because Aereo was providing the content.

That's the line that SCOTUS has drawn.

Tivo Roamio Streaming down in 3...2...1....