6/2014 SCOTUS rulings: a mixed bag

[Balog]

The good: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/25/supreme-court-requires-warrants-for-cell-phone-searches-on-arrest/

Cops need a warrant to search a cell phone incident to arrest. A small step, but in the right direction.

The bad: http://www.businessinsider.com/aereo-supreme-court-ruling-2014-6

Copyright law yet again bears no resemblance to its intended purpose.

[cordex]

The good: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/25/supreme-court-requires-warrants-for-cell-phone-searches-on-arrest/

Cops need a warrant to search a cell phone incident to arrest. A small step, but in the right direction.

A very small step indeed.  Unless the phone is locked, the phone will probably get searched anyway.  If something is found, they will try to come up with a reason for a warrant or just try to get you to give your permission to search it.

[SADShooter]

At least the freedom-loving Obama Administration wasn't advocating the unrestricted search power. Oh, wait...

[Balog]

A very small step indeed.  Unless the phone is locked, the phone will probably get searched anyway.  If something is found, they will try to come up with a reason for a warrant or just try to get you to give your permission to search it.

/shrug

Better than ruling the opposite way. And I always keep my phone locked. 

[cordex]

And I always keep my phone locked. 

As we all should.

[AJ Dual]

As we all should.

What I'd want is a "duress code" for my phone that wipes and bricks it instantly. No second chances. I know iPhones will do it on 10 tries, but I want to be able to trick someone into bricking the phone on the first try. 

[roo_ster]

The good: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/25/supreme-court-requires-warrants-for-cell-phone-searches-on-arrest/

Cops need a warrant to search a cell phone incident to arrest. A small step, but in the right direction.

The bad: http://www.businessinsider.com/aereo-supreme-court-ruling-2014-6

Copyright law yet again bears no resemblance to its intended purpose.

I disagree.  Copyright law as passed by Congress is doing a fine job of maximizing the profits of the Disney corporation.

[Balog]

I disagree.  Copyright law as passed by Congress is doing a fine job of maximizing the profits of the Disney corporation.

True enough. "No resemblance to its Constitutional authorization" would be a better way of saying that.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't understand the objections to the Aereo decision. A copyright protects the owner of intellectual property. How is what Aereo is (was?) doing any different from someone buying one copy of a book, then making photocopies and selling them?

[Balog]

I don't understand the objections to the Aereo decision. A copyright protects the owner of intellectual property. How is what Aereo is (was?) doing any different from someone buying one copy of a book, then making photocopies and selling them?

Because what they were doing was nothing like that whatsoever? A better analogy would be that they were renting you a pair of binoculars so you could see a public billboard, or running a livestream of a public event.

[charby]

Because what they were doing was nothing like that whatsoever? A better analogy would be that they were renting you a pair of binoculars so you could see a public billboard, or running a livestream of a public event.

They were rebroadcasting for money, they didn't give money back to the company that owned the content that they were rebroadcasting.

[roo_ster]

They were rebroadcasting for money, they didn't give money back to the company that owned the content that they were rebroadcasting.

The company broadcast in the clear.  They were giving the content away at that point and making $$$ by selling airtime to advertisers.  They have no expectation that the information would not then be retransmitted.  If there was some sort of encryption that had to be cracked or if they sent out their *cast on a wire and someone tapped into the wire, I could see their point.  But not for stuff broadcast in the clear.  Or if they were charging receivers for content.

If I shout out via a bullhorn my SS# from my rooftop and my neighbor hears me, do I have legal recourse if my neighbor writes it down and then sells it to someone? 

I could be convinced otherwise, but I broadcasting in the clear and not charging users is a rather large hurdle.

[KD5NRH]

If I shout out via a bullhorn my SS# from my rooftop and my neighbor hears me, do I have legal recourse if my neighbor writes it down and then sells it to someone?

My signature is on a few publicly available documents.  Does that give anyone the right to use it for whatever purpose they want?

[Hawkmoon]

I could be convinced otherwise, but I broadcasting in the clear and not charging users is a rather large hurdle.

I disagree.

If I write a book and, after copyrighting it, I choose to give away the first 5,000 copies, that doesn't in any way invalidate the fact that I own the rights to the book's content.

[Nick1911]

So if I put up a TV antenna, and receive signals which I digitally decode it into visual entertainment on my computer, that's cool.  (TV tuner card)

If I decode this content, and send it over ethernet to my tablet, that's cool.

If I record this content to watch later, that's cool.

If I tell my friend that he can access my server for $8 bucks a month; my server powered by my electricity, which is providing network access to a signal I'm monitoring, going over public airway, crossing onto my private land; that's copyright infringement?

[Perd Hapley]

So if I put up a TV antenna, and receive signals which I digitally decode it into visual entertainment on my computer, that's cool.  (TV tuner card)

If I decode this content, and send it over ethernet to my tablet, that's cool.

If I record this content to watch later, that's cool.

If I tell my friend that he can access my server for $8 bucks a month; my server powered by my electricity, which is providing network access to a signal I'm monitoring, going over public airway, crossing onto my private land; that's copyright infringement?

Who knew? Hasn't it always been copyright infringement, to make money from others' intellectual property? And personal use of what's provided by the creator or his agent has never been a copyright problem, right?

Just guessing, 'cause I don't know this case from Adam, but I think charby nailed this one. If they were giving content away, that's one thing. Selling someone else's intellectual property? That's not gonna end well for you.

[Firethorn]

Just guessing, 'cause I don't know this case from Adam, but I think charby nailed this one. If they were giving content away, that's one thing. Selling someone else's intellectual property? That's not gonna end well for you.

It was an interesting case.  Nick didn't get it quite right in my mind, though. 

Let's go back in time:  VHS and time shifting was determined to be legal/constitutional.  Yes, the broadcast companies sued the makers of VHS and Betamax for producing equipment that 'could readily be used to violate copyrights'.
This resulted in a long line of history where the humble VHS recorder morphed into a digital video recorder.  Anyways, so DVRs are legal.  Leasing a DVR is legal; IE you don't need to own the box in order to record from it.  It's been long tradition that you don't need to own the antenna - look at all the renters out there.  Along with this, it was determined that a DVR that can stream to a remote location was also legal - see Slingbox.  End result is that you can location shift along with time shifting.

So, you can rent/lease the DVR and antenna and you can stream it to remote locations.  Owning the equipment is optional.  Now look at servers - virtual private servers have been a thing for quite some time.  So it's logical to virtualize the DVR and put it in 'the cloud' where there's fast connections and lots of bandwidth to minimize delay and maximize quality wherever you might be.

So what aereo was doing was renting you a remote 'cloud' DVR with your very own(tiny but presumably optimally placed) antenna for recording.  Every user's recording was unique, despite the massive space and quality savings you'd presumably get by using a bigger antenna and simply creating a master recording.  Indeed, you had options much like standard modern DVRs for a mix of telling it what to record and it guessing what you'll like and recording that. 

I have to say that, as a techie, I disagree with the ruling because it sets historical precedents on it's ear.  To misquote George - 'Sellings legal, Sex is legal, so why is selling sex illegal?'.

[gunsmith]

i really like the aero thing and was looking forward to trying it - years after everyone else had already done so - - i have to get a smart phone this year - i am left out in the cold without one ...