stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 6868
[type] => release
[language] =>
[uid] => 4
[status] => 1
[created] => 1337800113
[changed] => 1337800113
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 6930
[revision_uid] => 4
[title] => Public Knowledge and Electronic Frontier Foundation Defend Aereo TV Project
[body] =>
Consumers
should not be deprived of the right to watch broadcast TV through the
technologies they choose, Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation said Wed. in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court in New York
City.
At
issue is a case filed by a group of broadcasters against Aereo, an innovative
project that would allow consumers to watch broadcast TV through a series of
small antennae and an Internet connection.
The
brief is here.
While
the broadcasters want an injunction against Aereo, claiming they would be
harmed, PK and EFF disagreed: “By
providing an antenna to viewers, Aereo does nothing more than make it easier
for viewers to access a broadcaster’s free service. By making free TV better
Aereo improves and does not disrupt the television industry, and helps carry
out the important public goal of preserving the ability of viewers to watch
free-to-air TV.”
Using
Aereo is no different than watching TV in any number of other ways, whether
with a rooftop antenna, or rabbit-ears antenna, or with a mobile device, and
adding time-shifting to those, the groups said noting that Aereo has assigned
only one antenna per customer.
In
addition, there are no copyright violations, as the broadcasters have charged,
because watching TV is a “private performance,” as opposed to a “public
performance,” which could trigger a copyright infringement. Previous cases have found “that a television
transmission is a non-actionable private performance when it is sent only to an
individual or family and their social acquaintances,” the groups argued.
Shutting
down Aereo would harm consumers and stifle innovation, the groups said: “A preliminary injunction against Aereo would
not only deprive consumers and the competitive landscape of a new entrant, it
also would chill other potential startups and their investors from entering the
market.”
They
added that “the public has an interest — independent of the parties’
interests—in access to new ways of
receiving broadcast television, and in promoting competition among lawful video
transmission technologies and businesses.”
At
its core, the case is about more than Aereo, the groups said, arguing it is about “the right of individuals —Aereo’s customers
and ultimately all residents of the U.S.—to watch free local broadcast television with the technology of their
choosing.”
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1337800113
[format] => 7
[name] => Art Brodsky
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-4.png
[data] => a:6:{s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"8ccae93257cd5bd08279c4b915d339a4";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}}
[path] => public-knowledge-and-electronic-frontier-foundat-0
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1337800113
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[85] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 85
[vid] => 5
[name] => Broadband
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
[abstract] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[canonical] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[copyright] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.contributor] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.creator] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.date] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[month] => 5
[day] => 23
[year] => 2012
)
)
[dc.title] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[description] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[keywords] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[location] => Array
(
[latitude] =>
[longitude] =>
)
[pics-label] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[revisit-after] => Array
(
[value] => 1
)
[robots] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[noarchive] => 0
[nofollow] => 0
[noindex] => 0
[noodp] => 0
[nosnippet] => 0
[noydir] => 0
)
[use_default] => 0
)
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[print_links] => Array
(
[#weight] => -101
[#suffix] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[field_issue] => Array
(
[#type_name] => release
[#context] => full
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#post_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_field_wrapper_post_render
)
[#weight] => -2
[field] => Array
(
[#description] =>
[items] => Array
(
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#single] => 1
[#attributes] => Array
(
)
[#required] =>
[#parents] => Array
(
)
[#tree] =>
[#context] => full
[#page] => 1
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#title] => Issues
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#teaser] =>
[#node] => stdClass Object
*RECURSION*
[#type] => content_field
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => -1
[#value] => Consumers
should not be deprived of the right to watch broadcast TV through the
technologies they choose, Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation said Wed. in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court in New York
City.
At
issue is a case filed by a group of broadcasters against Aereo, an innovative
project that would allow consumers to watch broadcast TV through a series of
small antennae and an Internet connection.
The
brief is here.
While
the broadcasters want an injunction against Aereo, claiming they would be
harmed, PK and EFF disagreed: “By
providing an antenna to viewers, Aereo does nothing more than make it easier
for viewers to access a broadcaster’s free service. By making free TV better
Aereo improves and does not disrupt the television industry, and helps carry
out the important public goal of preserving the ability of viewers to watch
free-to-air TV.”
Using
Aereo is no different than watching TV in any number of other ways, whether
with a rooftop antenna, or rabbit-ears antenna, or with a mobile device, and
adding time-shifting to those, the groups said noting that Aereo has assigned
only one antenna per customer.
In
addition, there are no copyright violations, as the broadcasters have charged,
because watching TV is a “private performance,” as opposed to a “public
performance,” which could trigger a copyright infringement. Previous cases have found “that a television
transmission is a non-actionable private performance when it is sent only to an
individual or family and their social acquaintances,” the groups argued.
Shutting
down Aereo would harm consumers and stifle innovation, the groups said: “A preliminary injunction against Aereo would
not only deprive consumers and the competitive landscape of a new entrant, it
also would chill other potential startups and their investors from entering the
market.”
They
added that “the public has an interest — independent of the parties’
interests—in access to new ways of
receiving broadcast television, and in promoting competition among lawful video
transmission technologies and businesses.”
At
its core, the case is about more than Aereo, the groups said, arguing it is about “the right of individuals —Aereo’s customers
and ultimately all residents of the U.S.—to watch free local broadcast television with the technology of their
choosing.”
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -1
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 2
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 3
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 4
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 10
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -4
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 8
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 9
[view] => files
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 5
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 6
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 7
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 1
)
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] => Consumers
should not be deprived of the right to watch broadcast TV through the
technologies they choose, Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation said Wed. in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court in New York
City.
At
issue is a case filed by a group of broadcasters against Aereo, an innovative
project that would allow consumers to watch broadcast TV through a series of
small antennae and an Internet connection.
The
brief is here.
While
the broadcasters want an injunction against Aereo, claiming they would be
harmed, PK and EFF disagreed: “By
providing an antenna to viewers, Aereo does nothing more than make it easier
for viewers to access a broadcaster’s free service. By making free TV better
Aereo improves and does not disrupt the television industry, and helps carry
out the important public goal of preserving the ability of viewers to watch
free-to-air TV.”
Using
Aereo is no different than watching TV in any number of other ways, whether
with a rooftop antenna, or rabbit-ears antenna, or with a mobile device, and
adding time-shifting to those, the groups said noting that Aereo has assigned
only one antenna per customer.
In
addition, there are no copyright violations, as the broadcasters have charged,
because watching TV is a “private performance,” as opposed to a “public
performance,” which could trigger a copyright infringement. Previous cases have found “that a television
transmission is a non-actionable private performance when it is sent only to an
individual or family and their social acquaintances,” the groups argued.
Shutting
down Aereo would harm consumers and stifle innovation, the groups said: “A preliminary injunction against Aereo would
not only deprive consumers and the competitive landscape of a new entrant, it
also would chill other potential startups and their investors from entering the
market.”
They
added that “the public has an interest — independent of the parties’
interests—in access to new ways of
receiving broadcast television, and in promoting competition among lawful video
transmission technologies and businesses.”
At
its core, the case is about more than Aereo, the groups said, arguing it is about “the right of individuals —Aereo’s customers
and ultimately all residents of the U.S.—to watch free local broadcast television with the technology of their
choosing.”
[#printed] => 1
)
[links] => Array
(
[print_html] => Array
(
[href] => print/6868
[title] => Printer-friendly version
[attributes] => Array
(
[title] => Display a printer-friendly version of this page.
[class] => print-page
[rel] => nofollow
)
[html] =>
[query] =>
)
)
)
