Gadgetory

earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled a tario a service that lets you stream broadcast television over the Internet violated copyright law broadcasters like ABC NBC CBS and Fox all argue the area acted like a cable company only without paying for the content Aereo's defense was at its first and foremost a technology company that rents out tiny dime size antennas that pick up public over-the-air channels each antenna is unique to the user but instead of physically having it in your home all the rabbit ears instead are stored together in a large warehouse now the Supreme Court has never allowed video cameras in the courtroom but thinks the last week tonight with John Oliver we actually have footage of the proceedings the following is actual audio recordings of the Supreme Court's Aereo case here's areas lawyers making their case when they sign up their system is completely empty there's no content being provided there's equipment that's being provided so the notion that they have in the reply brief over and over that were somehow a content provider would mean that everybody who provides an antenna or a DVR is somehow a content provider now the government says they give the subscriber a menu and says that you have these choices and they're providing you these choices and those choices are content it's no different Justice Ginsburg that if I'm at home and I have an antenna rabbit ears on my TV and I know what channels are different from from a user's perspective it's exactly the same as if I'm watching cable right you just have a different content selection and then you pick off that menu right but the menu Justice Kagan and Justice Ginsburg is simply what is technologically available there are broadcast signals that are available in a local area and they are limited because that's what the broadcaster's make available and simply providing a user guide that says you can tune to this channel or you can tune to that channel if you want to pick up one program or another can't be the difference between a content provider and merely facilitating the use of your equipment for nearly one hour lawyers and judges try to find the perfect non technological metaphor to describe just how aerial works which ultimately led to this I think it's the basic decision but differ between a car dealer and a valet parking service if you looked at it from 30,000 feet you might think hey both of these things provide cars to the public but if you looked at it more closely to understand well if I show up at the car dealership without a car I'm going to be able to get a car if I show up at the valet parking service and I don't own a car it's not going to end well for me what and so from I didn't mean to interrupt your well I was just get it so I think in there is a very real way in which you would say you know the end of the day the car dealer is providing cars to the public valet parking service is not it's provided by a senator right I don't want to stretch you to but why isn't it like a public garage in your own garage I mean you know if you can park your car in your own garage or you can park it in a public garage you can go to RadioShack and buy an antenna and a DVR or you can rent those facilities somewhere else from aerial they've got an Intendant they'll let you use it when you need it mr. chief justice that's not an implausible way to look at this problem is all of these metaphors are inherently flawed if anything it's a clear sign that the judges and indeed the law itself hasn't caught up with the current state of Technology there's even an extended argument over the definition of copy which sounds silly but is important legal nuance there's no reason it's a user specific copy is it varying ten thousand copies it'd be much easier for you to just have to make one copy and everybody could get a copies you don't need every viewer to have his own copy but that is the that is the key distinction between video on demand and the kinds of equipment and technology that area provides you can't watch my copy I can't download you're saying your copy is different from my copy correct what that's a reason we call them copies because they're the same all I'm trying to get it and I'm not saying it's outcome-determinative or necessarily bad I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with you could also say that Arielle is actually complying with the law as is written today I'll be it with thousands of tiny antennas but the 6-3 decision decided to ignore Aereo's technological loophole and that's kind of the problem even if Arielle winning was a longshot these arguments highlight just how fast technology is moving and how slow the legal system can be to understand it this won't be the last time technology is at the center of a trial and next time let's at least hope for some more updated analogies why isn't what used to be called a phonograph records store that sells phonograph records giving a public performance