[snowwrestler]

If the value of Aereo's service was the technology, then couldn't they have stayed in business by paying licensing fees on the content? Ultimately, that's what the legal disagreement was over--the fees, not the technology.

[morninj]

The content owners would have to agree to license their works to Aereo.

[the_ancient]

Which is another problem with copyright law

If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it.

If you offer your channel to comcast you should be required to offer to any other service for the same fee or substantially the same fee,

That should be the string that is attached for intellectual privilege,

[dragonwriter]

> If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it.

The ability to control who uses something is exactly what a legal monopoly over it is.

Its like saying of personal property, "if you want a legal monopoly over your things, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can borrow them."

[the_ancient]

Hardly, there is no such thing as intellectual property.

With property you have exclusive access over a physical item, with intellectual privilege the government is granting you the exclusive control over an idea, visual or audio representation of an idea, or some other non-physical concept.

for example Copyright does not apply to a DVD it applies to the visual idea's and representation of those idea that happened to be stored on a DVD

The government created this artificial privilege and enforces that with threats of violence.

It is in no way akin to property, nor does is have any analogous relationship to property.

[dragonwriter]

> Hardly, there is no such thing as intellectual property.

There absolutely is such a thing as intellectual property.

> With property you have exclusive access over a physical item

With property, you have exclusive rights with regard to something, but the exclusive rights may not be specifically to "access", and it may not be in a "physical item". Intangible personal property (which includes intellectual property, but also lots of other property rights in nonphysical things -- like securities, rights to legal action, etc.) is hardly a new thing.

> The government created this artificial privilege

Property is artificial, man-made, exclusive privilege with regard to something -- all of it is created through government, and all of it is enforced with threats of violence.

> It is in no way akin to property

Even your own description is exactly like every form of property.