movies/tv The Aereo Lawsuit

[Wind Chaser 4,767]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/04/21/aereo_supreme_court_the_case_could_completely_change_the_tv_industry.html

 

This has been going on for a while, but has now reached the Supreme Court. The basic story is that Aereo retransmits free broadcast channels over the Internet for a fee of $10 a month while the corporate scum that runs the networks has gotten their panties in a twist over it, although I personally do not find them 100% in the wrong here.

 

The problem I have with the whole thing is that Aereo pockets all of the money from this. If it was a free service I would actually not have a problem with it. That's the reason why the networks are suing and claiming good old-fashioned Copyright Infringement on them. These may be free signals, but someone worked their back out putting these things on the air and someone else had to pay for them (commercials), and I find it unfair that Aereo pockets all of this money while none of it goes to supporting the content.

 

However, the networks are also continuing their game of fighting progress and the power of the consumer by keeping their content off of the Internet and trying to milk money out of anything at any turn, and claiming Armageddon if anything happened that would disrupt their old geezer of a business model. The networks are in bed with the cable companies and can and will abuse them into submission with their money and power with all of these carriage disputes, the same way the MPAA has made a lapdog out of NATO (the theater owners' association). This time, CBS and FOX claimed that they might move to cable if Aereo was declared legal. This shows nothing but a shallow anti-consumer attitude that will only make them look greedier in the eyes of the consumer. The problem is that the networks drove themselves into this crap by not doing enough to earn their money. They want to get fat and rich off of money that you would rather pay only to the networks you want by bundling them with others you don't need, and by attaching a fee to something that should be available for free. Raising retransmission fees to unreasonable rates for broadcast networks is what causes a lot of these carriage disputes. I would rather support the content by way of a kind of freemium service. Make the basic level of the content free and charge a premium for other features, basically the same thing Hulu does, that way I can support the content I like.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

 

Tying is defined as an illegal business practice, but unfortunately the government has let the Big Media corporations take over, evidenced by the deregulation and copyright extensions that now make the media a multi-billion dollar industry run by only a few companies. Now the government does nothing because it's their best friends doing it, the same ones helping to drive the country straight down the Highway to Hell by eliminating dissenting voices from the conversation and dumbing down politics to a simple choice of red or blue. It doesn't matter that the choices they make are stupid because they'll just mob rule their will into law to make what they do right and what you do wrong.

 

I got my rant out on this, now I'd like to hear what you all think about this.

Edited April 22, 2014 by ~Happy Gilda (WCP)

[Scootalove 10,684]

I don't think that Aereo is in the wrong at all here. They are letting subscribers watch TV over the internet at a reasonable price, but the big companies feel that is cheating them out of attaining their customers.

 

But if an online service is a danger to your business, you need to find a way past it.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scootalove

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

While the big companies may be in the legal right here, they really need to re-evualuate their business model. If you are loosing so many customers to a online service that you then have to sue the competition into non existence, then you really should take a second look at your current model for business.