You’ve missed my point; I was stating that Recast is a not Tivo-like device, that it is a Tablo-like device, in it’s execution and process. Has nothing to do with Simple or anything else. If Simple weren’t dead and gone, I may have made that analogy also. I could have made the same analogy with HD Homerun as well, I chose Tablo as my example.
Wasn’t the king of all DVR suppliers Tivo? Didn’t they hold tons of patents? Since many considered Rivo to be a patent troll, isn’t that why Rivo bought Tivo?
And if you had ever been in the software/hardware business that’s why you not only copyright and patent your development(intellectual property) but also spend endless hours with the company patent attorney so they can validate said fact.
I second this Aero was essentially renting a Tablo like device hosted at their location. I should be able to pay someone in my local viewing area to host my Tablo if I want. It’s the same signal I can pick up at home. Since these channels make their money through commercials you aren’t stealing their IP as long as the end user is in their target viewing area.
I did understand your point; I was just being pedantic. 
A HD HomeRun doesn’t count; It’s just a network tuner.
1 Like
Good call on the Homerun!
Yes. Some more info. With Aereo each user got an antenna. You didn’t share an antenna with someone else. Aereo equipment included a mini-array of antennas that were doled out as someone was using OTA. Now, you didn’t get the “same” antenna every time, there was over subscription, an array of antennas, but not necessarily enough for eveyone to get OTA at the same time (but I never saw interruption in service).
Aereo, however, did limit the number of devices and therefor the number of streams. And the amount of storage space was relatively small… again, not shared. In other words, it was a lesser Tablo-like solution in many ways (more restrictive).
Thus if I watched live TV, or was recording, it was essentially my own non-shared antenna recording to my own non-shared storage space. This was essentially no different that someone “using your Tablo”. Which some of you do.
What made the proposition interesting is the fact that OTA by its very nature disenfranchises a large population since OTA reception is not uniform. Aereo placed their antenna arrays at a location to ensure good reception for their users. This way, people that could not receive OTA, could now receive OTA.
They got sued, not so much by content providers, but by cable companies (rebroadcast rights holders) believing that Aereo needed to obtain a “rebroadcast” rights agreement with providers (something, btw, the providers were never going to let Aereo, or any people obtain, Aereo tried, and was told “no” when they realized they were going to lose the court case).
Cable is very different. It’s one to many. One satellite (usually) to many people. A broadcast.
They were taken to court many times and each time, the courts ruled that Aereo’s creative solution to a very real problem was with the bounds of legality.
So… they powers that be appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court. Yes, the court that decided cases “forever” was going to hear this one (mind you, there are major cases yet to be heard by the Supreme Court, the Aereo case was “escorted” to the front of the line, as a major case to be decided, and yes, took days, btw).
Aereo’s lawyers were unprepared, feeling that SCOTUS would ruled like all the other courts before. But they didn’t. What angle was used this time? Ultimately the ruling was this… if you capture mpeg2 ATSC and then transcode it and then send it out… this is a “rebroadcast”… and thus requires a rebroadcast license. Mind you, this somewhat twists what is normally considers a “broadcast”. That is Aereo was always one to one (which doesn’t sound like the original meaning of “broadcast”). One source belonging to one owner being played by the one owner. So, now, the term “broadcast” and in particular “rebroadcast” can now also mean “change” in the original sent data.
With this new definition, the law was now clear. Aereo was found to be in violation of the law and was forced to die (with a fairly good bit of money being lost and of course the damage that comes from having everything stripped away from you). As mentioned, Aereo even offered to purchase traditional rebroadcasting rights, but the powers that hold those rights wanted Aereo to die, and refused to allow them to license.
Like Tucker, like Flash of Genius, you could make a great movie out of this.
The question is, was the SCOTUS really that stupid? I don’t think so. Which begs the question, how much and to whom? Now deceased Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, and there was one other (don’t remember off the top of my head). Did they refuse the “deal”? Was their a “deal”? Again, why I think it could make for a movie.
1 Like
In paragraphs 5 and 7 you have Tablo mentioned. Should that be Aereo?
1 Like
The Aero chocolate bar was the best ever…
1 Like
It was late… corrected (I hope)
1 Like
Ah, but like the business model, was full of holes 
1 Like
??? Sarcasm
More of a chocolate bar joke. Or attempt 
oh, wrong context…
The above aereo explanation was interesting but probably not very factual. Especially since the it was ABC as the plaintiff and a not a cable company.
You’re right. Again, I was typing from memory. But this, “It’s always a great idea when you can make money off of others intellectual property without paying them.”, is still a lie.
1 Like
My suggestion to you is that you open a business and looking for a hook to draw attention to your product, part of the signage looks surprising like Apples logo.
How long will it take before Apples lawyers contact you?
All of this started when Sony invented the BetaMax in the mid-1970’s. The VCR became cheap enough for many consumers in the early 1980’s.
Thus copyright rulings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
Unfortunately the great imaginary idea from Aereo didn’t match actual physics.
I’ve only ever seen Aero chocolates in Japan, didn’t know they made them here.
They were popular in Canada. I used to get the Rowntree’s version whenever I visited.
“In Germany the brand Aero is owned by German chocolate brand Trumpf.” (Wiki)
Still popular. 
We’ve got this in the kitchen at HQ right now. Thank you (curse you) for the reminder!
2 Likes