Comments

1
GDP in Seattle is up, unemployment around 4.5%, and so on
2
Why do people think interrupting large gatherings of any time is effective? I'm watching a guy talk about Android whatever and I hear muffled yelling from the audience. Now that'll get me on board!
3
I have a hard time mustering sympathy for poor Barry Diller and Aereo. I'm pro anything that increases the value paid to content creators and con anything that makes it even harder for people who create stuff to get paid. Aereo seems to fall into the latter category, just like Amazon and its apparent war against publishers. Not that cable companies and big TV networks are much more sympathetic than Aereo, but Aereo just strikes me as more "piracy" than "disruption."
4
I just don't understand why I can't get live broadcasters content on the web at their sites. They have everything to gain from putting it on the internet and increasing viewership.
5
@4 Exactly. Services like Aereo are provided an opportunity because the broadcasters are so backward. I no longer watch broadcast TV and nothing in my foreseeable future will change that. The challenge for broadcasters is to figure out how to regain my commercial viewing eyeballs. The longer they wait the more the concept of watching commercials becomes increasingly anachronistic. Kids today will grow up never having experienced the idea of watching anything other than sporting events "live".
6
Agreed, I'd be happy to pay for TV through my desktop.

7
Aereo was a BS runaround of existing copyright law...there is no great new technical innovation here - they're merely gaming the system. Cable itself was originally nothing more than improved quality OTA - a big and retransmission is retransmission. Having "invidividual, private" antennas leased out is not the same as saying "you get what you can pick up in the airwaves around your physical location for free". Getting from Aereo's little antenna warehouse to you involves...re-transmission.

If Aereo were ripping off cable companies - whose business model they are really "disrupting" (ie, competing against) - then I"d have a tiny, tiny sliver of sympathy for them, but even then, only if they competed with the content creators/providers and paid the same royalties and fees as cable does to broadcast.

As evil as cable is, this is a rare burst of common sense.
8
@5 But if the advertisers are getting the same ads on the websites, they are already getting paid. The advertisers value numbers of viewers so they could charge advertisers more. I'm not paying for what I can already get on my t.v. for free.
9
@4 - The reason national broadcasters won't stream to your desktop is so you don' bypass their local broadcast affiliates, who depend on local eyeballs and ad revenue (local). They will never make as much off you as an individual consumer as they do off of affiliates.

By all means, subscribe to a retransmitter (cable) - that's basically what Xfinity and the like are anyway...you're not really upset at broadcasters, you're upset at cable for not offering you on-demand, ala carte. I'm sure that is coming, but people will find it's a small fortune, because that local ad revenue and bundled subscribers won't be there to subsidize the costs of producing and delivering the content to you.
10
@5 - I cut my cable back in like 2008...I only watch the OTA I actually get at my house. Which means I watch PBS..like 2x a month. I will happily watch the decent broadcast shows via NetFlix (often only available on DVD - say, Modern Family) - I pay a premium for that, and the latency is enormous (doesn't work for sports), but that's the price of on-demand, and no ads.
11
I'll bet the cops outsource the cell phone searches to a contractor, or some local NSA source to get around the warrant.
12
@4 This is my huge beef. I'm more than happy to throw money at content providers for their content, but why in the fuck can't they get with the times? Quit forcing me to buy up a shit ton of channels at once, quit forcing me to watch your content on your schedule and quit forcing me to deal with exclusive (and often shitty) broadcasters.

It's like you'd prefer me to hit up bit torrent rather than have me pay you money.
13
One thing to understand from that Supreme Court ruling (as I read it) is this: the police cannot just seize your phone, check it and use anything on it of a criminal nature against you.

BUT, if on the scene of a crime, they perceive that you may have something on the phone related to THAT crime AND you may try to destroy/delete it, they can take your phone and use only that evidence (not anything else that they find).

So they can't go on a fishing expedition on your phone but if you are at a crime scene and have something documenting it/relating to that crime, they likely can use it.
14
KEEP SHOPPING
CONSUME
PROCREATE
OBEY
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE
/end transmission
15
@9 - I don't understand why the stations can't track my location as well as all the other internet services can. When I open my computer in the morning, I'm hit with ads so local it takes my breath away -- sometimes for businesses within a mile of me. Surely the broadcasters should be able to use whatever that technology is and do the same thing. Blogger and Tumblr know exactly where I'm located, but broadcasters are in the dark? Unpossible.
16
@15 Seriously, they're living in the fucking stone age.

Music labels figured this shit out, why can't tv?

@14 Wow man, that's really deep. Thanks for your incredible insight!
17
@15 - because geolocation for IP isn't perfect and most certainly doesn't map onto existing media market boundaries. Are you saying you want them to know your GPS coordinates at all times?

The local stations sell local ads, above and beyond what the national broadcasters do. That's a huge chunk of extra revenue the national broadcasters only get a piece of by selling their content to affiliates. That is the exact reason that cable companies - retransmitters just as local affiliates are - have to pay exorbitant fees to broadcasters.

This is killing NPR too, BTW - people streaming and member stations no longer having their local captive audiences.

Somebody has to pay for the content even if the stream/copy/whatever is just "free" bits of data.
18
The courts are full of old and lazy lawyers and politicians who cannot see the future because they're fixated on the past, and this court in particular clearly favors the established oligarchs.

The Aereo ruling was expected because the case law applied to the similar business models in cable and satellite has become well established and definitive. Why think about the nuance when you can copy and paste.

Unfortunately, as history teaches us the sharing economy online should brace for impact as overzealous businesses based on the old exclusionary capitalist models attempt to extend their control over any and all use of their copyrighted material anywhere by anyone, including individuals.

Of course, history also teaches us that such overzealous and intrusive exercises of power are the death throws of dying regime, an obsolete philosophy whose era is ending.

So, be not faint of heart, creative sharers, our time will come. Their age will pass.
19
@13

Unless, of course, you're crossing the border where the constitution has been suspended indefinitely making all searches, seizures and detainments magically permissible.

Apparently, the borders, real and virtual, exist in a magical fold in time and space created by theoretical law and applied with unbounded military force.

Whoever said America is no longer on the creative cutting edge of reality just doesn't understand - America had boldly gone beyond it.
20
@ 16, you could always waste you time reading the traditional media's business news.

Q1 GDP clearly showing another economic collapse in progress? IT SNOWED THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.