R.I.P. to Aereo as big money dinosaurs win Supreme Court battle

"a sad day for tech innovation"??? Wow! Someone has some sour grapes.

The summary in the rendered judgement by the SCOTUS is loud and clear-- "if you don't like our judgement, then call your Congressman/woman/trans/undecided/whatever". Their so-called explanation of the ruling is nothing but lawyer-speak taken directly from the cable lawyers. I doubt seriously any of the SCOTUS judges are tech-savvy enough (or even care) to figure out the actual nature of what Aereo provides. SCOTUS's bias in favor of status quo in this ruling is also loud and clear. What about using DVR software on a computer at home for example, from an OTA antenna/receiver, which has been available a lot longer than AEREO? Is that now illegal as well? Because that's exactly and ONLY what Aereo provided in the first place...

I don't live in a city where OTA television signals can be picked up by antenna, I have to pay out the nose for 100 channels to only consume 10 channels I only care about. But I do not beseech those who can us an antenna for free OTA signals. This was a very bad decision. What will happen if someone makes a better car radio & antenna that receives free OTA as good as satellite radio? The interpretation of this ruling would mean the average consumer will not be allowed to use it. Why? Simply because the liberal majority on the supreme court can be bought.

This is a serious injustice.........coming from the country that has an FCC rule of "any signal broadcast to the air can be received BY ANYBODY".

How is Aereo any different from buying an HD OTA antenna and then buying a Tivo standard model that records OTA broadcasts Hmmmm?

I do recollect reading something about Aereo having a "Cloud DVR". They should have simply sold the antenna and DVR to EACH INDIVIDUAL rather than clouding it.

For your information, The US Supreme Court is NOT a liberal court. This court is CLEARLY a CONSERVATIVE one. Otherwise, it would've found in Aereo's favor.

Originally posted by ivymike:

---

For your information, The US Supreme Court is NOT a liberal court. This court is CLEARLY a CONSERVATIVE one. Otherwise, it would've found in Aereo's favor.

---

For your information, the decision against Aero was a 6-3 decision by the liberal wing of the court. The six justices voting against Aero included all four of the liberal justices (Breyer, Kagan, Sotamayor, and Ginsburg) along with the moderate justice (Kennedy) and one conservative justice (Roberts). The three justices who voted in favor of Aero were the three most conservative justices -- Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Your suggestion that a conservative court found against Aero and a liberal court would have found in favor of Aero is simply misinformed.

Sometimes it's better to stay silent and conceal your ignorance than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Going with the status quo and big biz sounds pretty conservative to me... even given the political doubletalk.

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Going with the status quo and big biz sounds pretty conservative to me... even given the political doubletalk.

---

The fact that the liberal justices sided with the broadcasters and the conservative justices sided with Aero tells us that you are missing something.

Originally posted by SoTired:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Going with the status quo and big biz sounds pretty conservative to me... even given the political doubletalk.

---

The fact that the liberal justices sided with the broadcasters and the conservative justices sided with Aero tells us that you are missing something.

---

If it walks like a duck and quacks etc...

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Originally posted by SoTired:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Going with the status quo and big biz sounds pretty conservative to me... even given the political doubletalk.

---

The fact that the liberal justices sided with the broadcasters and the conservative justices sided with Aero tells us that you are missing something.

---

If it walks like a duck and quacks etc...

---

What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that because the result sounds conservative to you then it must have come from the conservative wing of the court? Because if that's what you're saying, then that's just plain ignorant. The conservative justices (except Roberts) voted for Aero, and the liberal justices voted for the broadcasters. It ain't rocket science.

If you are trying to say something else, then I'm not sure what it is. It might be helpful to put aside the colloquial expressions and simply say what you mean.

I've been plain enough... whatever the political leanings of the judges are said to be it was still a conservative decision.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

I've been plain enough... whatever the political leanings of the judges are said to be it was still a conservative decision.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

When your idea of a "conservative" decision is one that is supported by all liberal justices and rejected by all but one conservative justice, that suggests you have some misconceptions about what it means to be conservative.

Originally posted by hearme0:

---

This is a serious injustice.........coming from the country that has an FCC rule of "any signal broadcast to the air can be received BY ANYBODY".

How is Aereo any different from buying an HD OTA antenna and then buying a Tivo standard model that records OTA broadcasts Hmmmm?

I do recollect reading something about Aereo having a "Cloud DVR". They should have simply sold the antenna and DVR to EACH INDIVIDUAL rather than clouding it.

---

It's breaking copyright because they are rebroadcasting the channel without paying for a license to do so.

You break copyright by buying a DVD etc and then having another person to watch that DVD etc with you, as the friend hasn't paid for a lic to see that with you.

It's also the same thing when you're in a car driving around and you have music up loud enough that people on the street can hear it.

Stores in shopping centres have the same problem.

Originally posted by xtago:

---

Originally posted by hearme0:

---

This is a serious injustice.........coming from the country that has an FCC rule of "any signal broadcast to the air can be received BY ANYBODY".

How is Aereo any different from buying an HD OTA antenna and then buying a Tivo standard model that records OTA broadcasts Hmmmm?

I do recollect reading something about Aereo having a "Cloud DVR". They should have simply sold the antenna and DVR to EACH INDIVIDUAL rather than clouding it.

---

It's breaking copyright because they are rebroadcasting the channel without paying for a license to do so.

You break copyright by buying a DVD etc and then having another person to watch that DVD etc with you, as the friend hasn't paid for a lic to see that with you.

It's also the same thing when you're in a car driving around and you have music up loud enough that people on the street can hear it.

Stores in shopping centres have the same problem.

---

It probably has something to do with the way it affected the broadcasters pricing model.

Originally posted by SoTired:

---

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

I've been plain enough... whatever the political leanings of the judges are said to be it was still a conservative decision.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

When your idea of a "conservative" decision is one that is supported by all liberal justices and rejected by all but one conservative justice, that suggests you have some misconceptions about what it means to be conservative.

---

Or it suggests that you have misconceptions...



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Or it suggests that you have misconceptions...



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Once again, you throw out a couple of random words without any expression of meaning. My conception is a simple one that is obviously true: The four justices that everyone with a brain describes as "conservative" reached a decision that meets my definition of "conservative." The four justices that everyone with a brain describes as "liberal" reached a decision that meets my definition of "liberal." 100% consistent, and it does not in any way suggest I have a misconception of what "conservative" means. In fact, it confirms my understanding.

If you can't see the inherent contradiction in your view of "conservative" in a decision that is authored by all of the liberal justices on the court and rejected by the all of the undisputedly conservative justices on the court, then you simply don't have any common sense and I can't help you. Which explains why you are incapable of writing anything of substance and instead try to pass yourself off as intelligent by throwing out vague colloquialisms and meaningless hints that somewhere in your few words there might be some point buried in there.

Which branch of Conservatism are you referring to?

Originally posted by Jemborg:

---

Which branch of Conservatism are you referring to?

---

Really?

Go back and re-read all of your posts in this thread. Nowhere did you try to split hairs between "branches of conservatism." You simply threw the label "conservative" on the opinion. You didn't say it was consistent with some "branches of conservatism" but not others, you just said it was conservative. You took whatever "branches of conservatism" you think are out there, lumped them all together as "conservative," and threw that label on the Aero decision. You steadfastly refused to accept this as a liberal decision, even though that's clearly the camp of the justices who authored it. You steadfastly refused to consider the notion that conservative means something other than "favoring the status quo and big business."

You clearly have a lot to learn about what conservatives actually think, regardless of their "branches."

It's me wondering if you are splitting hairs.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You call the decision "conservative."

I prove you are wrong by pointing out that the conservative justices voted against the decision, and the liberals vote for it.

Rather than recognizing your error, you suggest I'm "splitting hairs."

OK, chief. It's clear that you don't have the intellectual horsepower to figure this out.

Good luck learning to tie your shoes, eat with a fork, and do all the other things that require more intelligence than understanding that, when four liberal justices vote for a decision and four conservatives vote against it, it's not a conservative decision.

You've utterly failed to justify why a decision that patently preserves the status quo and big biz could by any stretch of the imagination be called 'liberal'.

All you've done is weakly offer blanket assertions regarding the judges supposed political leanings and then ultimately resorting to lameass ad hominem. Pitiful.

Drag your knuckles over to a dictionary and look up 'conservative'.

[Deleted]

No dictionary defines "conservative" as "protecting big biz." Nice try, but a fail.

The fact that the conservative justices voted against the decision and liberal justices voted for it should be enough to inspire you to re-evaluate your flawed definition of conservatism. But clearly, you are not capable of that type of introspection.

Do you know why the conservative justices voted against the decision, and the liberal justices voted for it? Does your tiny brain even comprehend the notion that maybe there's something about the analysis that causes conservatives to lean in favor of Aero and liberals to lean in favor of the big broadcasters? Do you even know what statutory language the justices were interpreting, and why conservative judges would interpret that language in Aero's favor and liberal judges would interpret it in the broadcasters' favor?

No, of course you don't. You have not read the decision or the dissent. And it has not occurred to you that you would need to read the decision or the dissent to label it (wrongly) as a conservative one. It never occurred to you because, in your tiny little mind, you could never imagine that the question of whether a judicial opinion is conservative or liberal is anything more than a function of whether the outcome is one that preserves the status quo and helps big business.

The truth is that the difference between conservative and liberal judges has more to do with the way they interpret statutory language than with the outcomes they reach. And in this particular case, anyone who has ever taken even first-year jurisprudence course in law school would recognize that the arguments favoring Aero were the sort that would appeal to conservative jurists and the arguments favoring the broadcasters were the sort that would appeal to liberal jurists,.

I don't fault you for the fact that you didn't go to law school or study jurisprudence. But I do fault you for the fact that you arrogantly believe you understand what drives the justices when you haven't bothered to read the decision or make the slightest effort to understand why the decision appealed to all of the liberal justices and repelled all but one of the conservative justices. I do fault you for having such a tiny brain that you can't even comprehend the suggestion that the question of whether a decision is liberal or conservative is anything more than a question of whether it helps big business.

You are a prime example of the failure of our public school system. It amazes me that someone with your limited comprehension manages to eat. You must have a spouse that works, no?

FFS

Hahahahahah

More assertions. Just present the actual judicial arguments you allude to.

...Or are you only capable of acting like an ahole?

Troll much?







-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great day for piracy.

This is life in commie America now....lol