[discardorama]

> What is antiquated about the idea that you don't get to use other peoples' valuable content without paying for it?

Slingbox allows you to stream broadcast content without problems. Broadcasters are OK with that. So Aereo was basically renting out 1000s of little slingboxes; how's that a problem now?

[rsync]

Also, it's worth noting that there are slingbox colocation services in the world where you can rent a slingbox in a remote datacenter in the TV market you prefer...

[snowwrestler]

Can you replicate the functionality of Aereo that way? If so, why is Aereo's bankruptcy a loss? Could all of Aereo's customers just go rent a Slingbox instead? Legitimately curious here.

[pissmonger]

According recent law passed by SCOTUS owning a Slinbox is OK, renting one is not.

Aereo was exactly like slingbox, except you leased the equipment rather than own it.

[res0nat0r]

Slingbox allows customers to privately rebroadcast content they have a license to view unlike Aereo which did not have that right.

[thedufer]

No one is claiming Aereo has that right. They're claiming that the person renting the antenna does.

The implication of the case seems to be that renting an antenna does not give you those rights in the same way buying one does, which is bizarre and kind of hard to rationalize.

[res0nat0r]

You can rent an antenna and do this privately to you and your household, you can't do this as a 3rd party company according to the law.

[crazypyro]

Except the whole argument was that the 3rd party company wasn't doing it, it was simply providing a location for the customer's rented property to sit, wasn't it?

[res0nat0r]

Basically the 3rd party didn't have a right to redistribute the content which is what the court ruled.

[res0nat0r]

Not sure why a fact is something that should be so disagreeable to be downvoted. I know the truth hurts for this issue, but that is reality.