The Top Ten Stocks for Thursday, June 26

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg's Betty Liu, Alix Steel and Scarlet Fu report on today's ten most important stocks on “In The Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

He feeling good that you won this case.

What happens next?

-- you might be feeling good that he won this case.

What happens next?

Well, that he, you're right, we are feeling good.

This is a production that we predicted months ago.

It basically says, the supreme court's decision by a wide margin across a wide section of justices and the political spectrum says that this area that yanks signals from broadcast and rebuttals them better -- from free broadcast and rebuttals them and sells them is not the american way.

A company cannot just come along and do that.

What is next?

I suspect what is next is what aereo said all along, which is their business model is flatly illegal if the supreme court were to rule this way.

And this gets kicked back down to the lower court again after this appeal was won by the broadcasters.

What we see from -- seek from aereo?

Is -- will you seek damages against them?

Or is that water under the bridge now?

I cannot really get into the steps of the industry.

The supreme court yesterday handed the broadcast industry a sweeping victory in saying that aereo was illegal.

The next steps are four to play out in the lower court.

I want to read to you the comments from the co of aereo -- ceo of aereo right after the decision was handed down.

He said this.

When what do you say to that?

That is an interesting argument, but was flatly rejected by the supreme court for the simple reason that aereo is not in the technology business alone.

This is not about antennas that are innovative -- and by the way, i don't particularly think this is some sort of innovative technology.

It's about the service that grabs signals that they have not paid for and sells them to people for profit.

The technological piece, as the supreme court yesterday pointed out, was a red herring.

They are not purely a technology provider or innovator, but rather a service.

That is where aereo was obvious gated, and the supreme court said, that is not what you're doing and that is not the way american copyright law works.

You do know this case is going to affect other cases that are in the pipeline that also have to deal with similar issues that were brought about with aereo.

I'm thinking of one case coming up, which is foxx broadcasting against this will network -- dish network where dish was live streaming some of fox's programs and the same argument that dishes making was the same argument that aereo was.

How will this affect other cases where other companies want to also wide stream content?

I don't want to get into the particulars of any case, but what the supreme court's broad principle announced yesterday is one that is applicable along a range of circumstances.

You cannot grab free set -- free television signals and sell them to other people for profit without compensating the folks who produce it.

The broadcast industry spends billions of dollars a year innovating and producing content , and frank the, it's content that the world envy.

-- frankly, it's content that the world envy's. and for brought -- and for them to come along and think they could disrupt their revenue stream, they cannot necessarily afford to make the same investment.

The decision made yesterday is broadly applicable and affects our right more generally.

I don't think this changes the legal landscape, but reaffirms what it has always been.

But the fact that it is broad, as aereo brings up in their reaction -- the fact that it is so broad, what they are warning about now is that when others want to innovate television, they first going to have to go get permission from broadcasters in order to even start innovating?

And that was what we were talking about before.

It's one thing if you are just developing a technology, something that is, as you say, innovation.

It's another thing if you're grabbing the signals out of the air and not paying for them.

And the supreme court has said that copyright law from 1976 on is that you cannot do that.

And that is why he said the last few pages of what justice breyer said in his opinion is not persuasive for him.

Justice breyer said, this is a narrow opinion and does not affect cloud computing and all of these other things.

This is about a service that is trying to get something for nothing.

Thank you so much for joining us again.

We are just a few minutes away from the opening bell.

We've got the top 10 stocks you

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change