Supreme Court rules against Aereo

Agraza

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
I agree with the dissent that they did exploit a loophole in the law, but I disagree that they shouldn't pay for the access. I think congress should change the law so they fall under it, and that the court should have ruled differently. Broadcast television needs to be able to make money to make shows, and if cable companies followed Aereo down this path then they would lose a lot of the return on developing content. Of course broadcast television is probably going to die anyway, but we're decades out from that.
 
jeffvader

jeffvader

it's only castles burning
402
33
mad scene lol

rrr_img_69870.jpg
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,841
Agraza_sl said:
I agree with the dissent that they did exploit a loophole in the law, but I disagree that they shouldn't pay for the access. I think congress should change the law so they fall under it, and that the court should have ruled differently. Broadcast television needs to be able to make money to make shows, and if cable companies followed Aereo down this path then they would lose a lot of the return on developing content. Of course broadcast television is probably going to die anyway, but we're decades out from that.
Click to expand...
Broadcast television still makes money if people watch via Aereo or traditionally, they have no way of differentiating the two. They don't want this because they want to move away from the ad supported model and towards a pay model like everyone else.
 
K

Kedwyn

Silver Squire
3,915
80
Good ruling. If Aereo won the networks would of left the air waves for pay tv eventually. Consumers benefit far more leaving them on airwaves in the long run.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,841
Yeah, I would argue that is going to happen anyway. The networks aren't so much defending the freedom of the airwaves as they are crushing the competition when it comes to access to their broadcasts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.