<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>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>roywiggins</author><text>They&amp;#x27;re maybe trying to use the same law that Locast[1] is: there&amp;#x27;s a specific carve-out in the law about rebroadcasting for nonprofits: &amp;quot;an exception in U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 111) for retransmission of television programming by non-profits without charge or any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage (besides the costs needed to cover the operations and maintenance of the retransmitter), which was originally intended to cover over-the-air translator stations&amp;quot; [2]&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.locast.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.locast.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Locast#Legal_challenge&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Locast#Legal_challenge&lt;/a&gt;</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>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>Plough_Jogger</author><text>An interesting aspect of Aereo&amp;#x27;s model is that they attempted to circumvent these regulations by leasing each customer an individual antenna which they could access remotely. They maintained &amp;quot;antenna farms&amp;quot; full of tiny antennas.</text></comment>