Does Everything Have To Be Done on the Tablo?

Wow so I guess you think it is legal also to videotape a movie in the theater and charge a small storage fee for your clients to stream it right? I mean all they are paying for is the storage of a video that is not the original format so obviously legal.

So I know that it is legal to videotape a movie from OTA and using a VCR and videotape I had to pay for as long as it’s for private use only. Yes… I agree with that Aereo style model.

Don’t side with Fox just because they felt a threat of losing cable subscribers to cord cutting… which ultimately is what this is about from their side. Aereo made OTA “easier” and even possible for many who were forced to buy cable because they were disenfranschised (to use an Obama term).

With Aereo you merely rented the VCR, antenna and guide data (and some limited amount of taping space). Sounds like good business to me. Nothing was forced (like what the US Gov’t and cable companies did). OTA was via your own antenna was still doable (but you might not get good reception… Gov’t says “tough”). And you didn’t have to rent a VCR, you could buy your own. Now I guess you could say, if you were a VHS tape manufacturer, that Aereo would put you out of business, but that’s likely “competition” and not something you could challenge legally (well…nothing you could win at anyway).

And unlike TabloTV (which is in many ways more evil than Fox/ABC could have ever imagined), Aereo had very limited storage and limited the number of devices that you could stream to. Unlike TabloTV, it was very controlled and restricted. With TabloTV, I can stream to anything I want and any number of devices. Remember, with TabloTV, pulling the content off the device is very easy. And thus unlike Aereo (which you could not pull the content off of), it opens things up quite a bit to a whole slew of copyright violations.

I’m actually a pretty happy former Aereo user and in a way, TabloTV gives me some temporaral satisfaction against the broadcasters manipulation of our Supreme Court.

It is stealing. Why the hell are you talking about VHS? If you recorded a game and charged people for the tape you would be guilty of piracy. Why else would they buy the tape from you? Aereo took other peoples work and charged to watch it. IF they would have paid them to retransmit then Aereo would still be in business today.

No. They did not. Aereo never redistributed copyrighted material. It was always what you chose to record, just like with your Tablo or settop box today. They simply provided a remote PVR and an antenna for each and every person renting those things from them. They never ever ever ever ever ever (repeat till you understand) retransmitted anything.

A cable company does do a retransmission because they take a single satellite receiver, maniuplate and pump the same signal to a broadcast of end users. Aereo technology never did that… ever. Setting up a large screen TV and inviting your friends over for a Super Bowl party qualfied as a Public Performance. Aereo was not this either.

Actually, Aereo offered to pay the broadcasters for retransmission rights, they refused and let the company die. Now… in reality, again, Aereo doesn’t do retransimssion if you record some show and I record some show it’s two different antennas, two different receptions of legal OTA and two different recordings made. Aereo shouldn’t have even tried this, it was their last ditch effort in the wake of an unfair unjust ruling of the Supreme Court, and because the point was always to kill Aereo, they weren’t even allowed to do that.

You guys really really really need to dig deeper into the case and understand exactly what happened… you could make a good movie of this (something to pirate!).

With cable you and I would both recording the same received rebroadcast signal. With Aereo, your antenna might have different artificacting from my antenna (a reception not a broadcast/transmission)… which makes sense since Aereo had to avoid anything looking like retransmission. This is why also with cable you could easily “vampire tap” your neighbors cable (before the destruction of QAM). with Aereo, you could never do that. You had a virtual “cord” running from your house to your private PVR. To avoid extra gotchas with this arrangement, Aereo had regional restrictions (which could easily be circumvented as with most Internet based things… but that’s not the focus).

There was no “theft” in the case, just the shutting down of a company complying with the rules because broadcasters did not want OTA to eat into their revenues and even worse, they didn’t even want another retransmission player (not that Aereo was a retransmitter, they just tried as a last ditch effort and were denied).

Wait so if Aereo was not retransmitting then why did they offer to pay a retransmitting fee?? LOL. You keep contradicting your self with these long novel like replies. I have a Supreme Court ruling backing me up what do you have?

1 Like

I’m sorry that you find this funny. It’s a pretty serious matter that could affect Tablo and Tivo and others eventually as it shows the power of the broadcasters inside of our Supreme Court (the lower courts all ruled correctly).

I have never said that I agree in any way shape or form wth the Supreme Court ruling. It was wrong. Completely wrong and could affect any cloud based services. But you are correct, if you sided against cord cutting, against Tablo, Tivo, etc… yes… you have sided with the Supreme Court and you are correct, even when they are wrong “they are right”. Who needs liberty anyhow?

The Supreme Court made a ruling and you’ve decided it must have been justified in doing so. But if you want to beat me into submission for no reason, perhaps in an Aereo style fashion… I suppose you must do what you have to do. Maybe the Supreme Court will applaud?

As for Aereo’s post Supreme Court decision to try to “play along” with the unjust “new rules”… I’ll let what I’ve already written stand. Again, I disagree with what they did, but there were livelihoods at stake and a lot of investment and they were just trying not to lose it all.

Supreme Court made a common sense ruling. Wait are you the guy I seen on Cops last night? He was caught in a hotel room with a hooker and he claimed the $200 was for the room and not the naked hooker on the bed. You know like you where just renting the hardware not the shows!

1 Like

Broadcasters got the scotus to rule that the setup was a “public performance” of the content.

if you want to use the hooker analogy, they ruled that the hotel room was a public place…

It’s just sad because there’s really no difference between going from a Tablo backend to a frontend and going from Aereo cloud to (more restricted) frontend apart from the “length of the cord”. I guess you could say fortunately Nuvyyo is Candadian so that can’t entirely kill the company like they did with Aereo. Aereo’s lawyers were really really really bad. They thought they had a “slam dunk” based on plethora of lower court rulings… they were wrong. I just hope other OTA players understand the ramifications of the ruling and how it could be used against them. Hard to argue against a Supreme Court ruling… even when it’s obviously wrong.

@Monkey, you really really really really do not understand Aereo’s technology or the court case. Sorry.

The big difference between Tablo and Aereo is the where the antenna is and how it is being used or shared. On a Tablo set up you own the antenna at your location. You are recording programs that you capture with your own equipment just like a VCR. In the Aereo set up they own the antennas. You were not actually renting real estate where an antenna resided but using an available antenna on the Aereo system. The antennas are “multitenant” which means that, when one Aereo subscriber is not using an antenna at a given time, it is available to all other subscribers. I can see how the court could see this as a re-broadcast using a different technology.

So if there is one antenna, and only one person at a time can use it… you just said this equals re-broadcast?? Right. I think I’ll stop reading this thread before I massively throw up.

Hopefully, nobody agrees with you. Reception cannot equal broadcast much less re-broadcast. It just can’t. It’s nonsense.

I don’t think it is a re-broadcast. Never said that. I think the court got confused with the technology and they see it as a re-broadcast.

yep… sorry. It’s just hard for me to “see it”. And I think ultimately they ruled on the basis of “public performance” which arguably is a scarier mistake.

Public performance is like… well… like a Sports Bar for example. You can’t just receive a broadcast and spray it out to a multitude of displays for many many people without paying (don’t open up a Sports Bar and expect that it all comes for free). Aereo didn’t do this either.

Bad lawyers, bad ruling and a very very very bad precedent for the future.

Bad lawyers?? Your using the same argument they used and they lost so what does that say about you??

Also you say it will have very very very very very very bad stuff in the future, well it has been 2 years since the ruling and Tablo is doing great so when will this bad bad bad bad bad bad things happen??? Also wheat bad bad bad bad bad things will happen??? Will I not be able to continue to use my own antenna to record tv? Oh wait that is legal. Will they not be able to sell shows to me for a profit? That is illegal. Good thing Tablo is not do illegal things like Aereo.

I’m a little confused about the Sports Bar reference.
I thought that as long as you don’t charge people to see the broadcast, then it’s legal.
Que no?

To simplify, let’s use a closer to home reference.
Let’s say I pay $50 to see a pay TV boxing event at my house.
I have a few friends over to watch the event with me.
If I don’t charge my friends money to watch the event, is it legal?

Yes, that is perfectly legal because it is in your home. However, if you were at a community center or church and did the same thing, it would not be legal under copyright law.

As I understand it it’s still based on size of screen and number of people even in a home scenario. Not saying the Feds or anybody is moving in next door… just saying…

According to cjcox if it is on antenna all they need is antennas for everyone then they can charge big bucks for “Renting” the antenna and not compensate anyone! PURE PROFIT if you disagree he will puke all over you.

Maybe it’s similar to what some San Francisco chefs did during the ban on the sale of duck foie gras.
Since the sale of duck foie gras was illegal, some provided it for free along with your meal or drinks that you do pay for.