<story><title>YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/30/21308449/youtube-tv-price-increase-64-99-viacom-hbo-new-channels</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ls612</author><text>I never understood what the business interest of the tv stations was in preventing streaming online. They already give away for free the stream over the air. What gives? Do they make money on the antennas or receivers or something?</text></item><item><author>crazygringo</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m no lawyer, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t exactly seem legal. Streaming free local network broadcasts was definitively ruled as illegal by the Supreme Court in 2014 -- remember that was Aereo&amp;#x27;s entire business model. [1]&lt;p&gt;It seems like the Stanford service is trying to justify themselves by being an academic study and limiting to 500 concurrent participants... but it&amp;#x27;s telling they don&amp;#x27;t list any legal justification on the site, and merely generically claim:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Stanford respects the intellectual property rights of others. If you believe your copyright has been violated on a Stanford site, please notify puffer-copyright-notices@cs.stanford.edu and give notice as stated under Reporting of Alleged Copyright Infringement.&lt;/i&gt; [2]&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m honestly shocked this ever passed Stanford legal review. Maybe it never did?&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Aereo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Aereo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;terms&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;terms&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>keithwinstein</author><text>ObShameless reminder that &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&lt;/a&gt; remains free of charge.&lt;p&gt;The site streams San Francisco affiliates and local stations of NBC&amp;#x2F;CBS&amp;#x2F;ABC&amp;#x2F;PBS&amp;#x2F;FOX&amp;#x2F;CW as part of a university study on video streaming algorithms -- it&amp;#x27;s essentially a big A&amp;#x2F;B test to try to reproduce or clarify some of the findings in the research literature. We&amp;#x27;re now posting all our data and analysis each day. Research talk here: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;63aECX2MZvY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;63aECX2MZvY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The content is... well, it&amp;#x27;s U.S. network television and associated daytime programming. But some people like it! And it&amp;#x27;s free (for people inside the U.S.).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>AnssiH</author><text>Many of them charge cable operators for the right to carry them: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Retransmission_consent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Retransmission_consent&lt;/a&gt; - so having the channel available free online diminishes the value of the retransmission consent.&lt;p&gt;Also, the copyright licenses the station has for their programming usually specify limits on redistribution - e.g. geographical, types of carriage, amount of customers reached (with a wider distribution costing more, as it provides more value to the licensee and reduces the licensor&amp;#x27;s ability to sell licenses to other entities).</text></comment>
<story><title>YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/30/21308449/youtube-tv-price-increase-64-99-viacom-hbo-new-channels</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ls612</author><text>I never understood what the business interest of the tv stations was in preventing streaming online. They already give away for free the stream over the air. What gives? Do they make money on the antennas or receivers or something?</text></item><item><author>crazygringo</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m no lawyer, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t exactly seem legal. Streaming free local network broadcasts was definitively ruled as illegal by the Supreme Court in 2014 -- remember that was Aereo&amp;#x27;s entire business model. [1]&lt;p&gt;It seems like the Stanford service is trying to justify themselves by being an academic study and limiting to 500 concurrent participants... but it&amp;#x27;s telling they don&amp;#x27;t list any legal justification on the site, and merely generically claim:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Stanford respects the intellectual property rights of others. If you believe your copyright has been violated on a Stanford site, please notify puffer-copyright-notices@cs.stanford.edu and give notice as stated under Reporting of Alleged Copyright Infringement.&lt;/i&gt; [2]&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m honestly shocked this ever passed Stanford legal review. Maybe it never did?&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Aereo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Aereo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;terms&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&amp;#x2F;terms&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>keithwinstein</author><text>ObShameless reminder that &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;puffer.stanford.edu&lt;/a&gt; remains free of charge.&lt;p&gt;The site streams San Francisco affiliates and local stations of NBC&amp;#x2F;CBS&amp;#x2F;ABC&amp;#x2F;PBS&amp;#x2F;FOX&amp;#x2F;CW as part of a university study on video streaming algorithms -- it&amp;#x27;s essentially a big A&amp;#x2F;B test to try to reproduce or clarify some of the findings in the research literature. We&amp;#x27;re now posting all our data and analysis each day. Research talk here: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;63aECX2MZvY&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;youtu.be&amp;#x2F;63aECX2MZvY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The content is... well, it&amp;#x27;s U.S. network television and associated daytime programming. But some people like it! And it&amp;#x27;s free (for people inside the U.S.).</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kgermino</author><text>They get paid by the cable companies (or YouTubeTV style equivalents). It’s not too much (~$0.40&amp;#x2F;subscriber IIRC) but it obviously adds up.&lt;p&gt;They don’t get that money if you use an antenna, but that’s a small market compared to the internet. Most people who use antennas won’t pay anyway, and broadcasting gives them access to the network.&lt;p&gt;But opening up streaming will draw a lot of people who would otherwise have a cable subscription. Which will lead to much more cord cutters and cut into the carriage fees from the cable company.</text></comment>