I can’t seem to wrap my head around this ruling. Unless I’m missing something important, this sounds a lot like the arguments TV networks used to make about VCRs. And is it the job of the Supreme Court to cut off innovation if it threatens someone else’s monopoly? What am I missing?
The real question has always been whether a ruling against Aereo would have implications for other online services. Many of the arguments broadcasters made against Aereo could just as easily be made against conventional cloud storage services such as Google Music and Dropbox, which also transmit copyrighted content to consumers.
In its 6-3 ruling against Aereo, the Supreme Court went out of its way to emphasize that the ruling shouldn’t be seen as a threat to other services that transmit copyrighted content at the request of users. Yet a legal scholar whose work was heavily cited by Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion says that the case will have cloud storage and consumer electronics companies “looking over their shoulders.”
“They’re just different, trust us.”
“The court is sending a very clear signal that you can’t design a system to be the functional equivalent of cable,” says James Grimmelmann, a legal scholar at the University of Maryland. “The court also emphasizes very strongly that cloud services are different. But when asked how, it says, ‘They’re just different, trust us.'”
The problem is that “trust us” isn’t going to be very reassuring for entrepreneurs and investors building the next generation of media technologies. Silicon Valley needs clear rules about what’s legal and what isn’t. The Supreme Court didn’t just fail to provide such such clarity, it blew up the legal principle that has served as the foundation for the cloud storage economy since 2008.
This is all about the ownership of property. If I own it and you want to make a profit by selling it to someone then first you have to buy it from me.
Does anyone really believe that the Supremes understand this technology? I mean, I believe about myself that I’m a 20th century individual who can’t get my mind around this ever developing technology, even though I use it all the time. And I’m a youngster compared to some of these justices. So when I hear them say, “trust us”, I believe they just don’t understand it enough to explain it.
Also, too, what Imhotep said.
The examples don’t work. Google Music purchased the rights to sell and stream its music to consumers. Dropbox is just a hard drive in the sky that people put THEIR OWN FILES onto. (Some of their files may be bootleg songs and videos, but that’s not Dropbox’s reason for existing and it certainly isn’t their fault it’s happening. Also, if they find out about it they can probably force you to delete them or terminate your service.) Aerio is the equivalent of “that guy downtown” who hangs a little box off your TV’s antenna terminal and suddenly you can watch pay-per-view events for nothing. Aerio may not transmit copyrighted material, but they enable people to receive programming they don’t otherwise have the right to receive.
It’s the same content you would get with an antenna.