Bankruptcy judge: Aereo can sell its TV stream tech—with some caveats

Broadcasters can attend the auction, oppose any sales, and examine customer records.

Read the whole story

 

[Vapur9]

I hope we get to hear about what the actual objections will be. Like if someone wants to put up an antenna at their residence to stream to the device of choice when they travel overseas, or if an antenna was placed in city spots with better reception to stream to someone's computer ... or else adapting the technology for radio when commutes cut off reception inside of tunnels.

 

[polarity]

Why exactly should broadcasters have any say in Aereo selling its technology, exactly? I wasn't aware copyright law had any provisions saying copyright holders could veto the sale of patents and such for tangentially related technologies. What legal theory gives them any say at all in this?

 

[hpsgrad]

polarity[/url]":28v99dx4]Why exactly should broadcasters have any say in Aereo selling its technology, exactly? I wasn't aware copyright law had any provisions saying copyright holders could veto the sale of patents and such for tangentially related technologies. What legal theory gives them any say at all in this?

I took it to be the case that the broadcasters get a say because they are the ones to whom Aereo owes money.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Moving forward, a lower court is still set to determine how much money Aereo owes in damages, "a number that could be in the tens of millions of dollars" WSJ notes.

Who got damaged?

 

[coachmark2]

Aereo will allow the broadcasters to attend any auction, to oppose any individual sales, and to examine Aereo's customer records. Aereo will also provide the broadcasting group weekly updates on the status of the sale process.

WTF for? That's just inconsistent and illogical. Infringement judgments are to stop you from doing an activity. It's not like Aereo's tech is now contraband... And even if it were, that's for the flipping federal government to decide, not the stupid broadcasters!

 

[Shavano]

coachmark2[/url]":2jk4p2kv]

Aereo will allow the broadcasters to attend any auction, to oppose any individual sales, and to examine Aereo's customer records. Aereo will also provide the broadcasting group weekly updates on the status of the sale process.

WTF for? That's just inconsistent and illogical. Infringement judgments are to stop you from doing an activity. It's not like Aereo's tech is now contraband... And even if it were, that's for the flipping federal government to decide, not the stupid broadcasters!

No, it's not contraband. It would be best for everybody if Aereo re-formed as a company doing just what it did before but paying a negotiated fee to carry broadcaster content.

 

[TechGeek]

Shavano[/url]":318j4fk2]

coachmark2[/url]":318j4fk2]

Aereo will allow the broadcasters to attend any auction, to oppose any individual sales, and to examine Aereo's customer records. Aereo will also provide the broadcasting group weekly updates on the status of the sale process.

WTF for? That's just inconsistent and illogical. Infringement judgments are to stop you from doing an activity. It's not like Aereo's tech is now contraband... And even if it were, that's for the flipping federal government to decide, not the stupid broadcasters!

No, it's not contraband. It would be best for everybody if Aereo re-formed as a company doing just what it did before but paying a negotiated fee to carry broadcaster content.

Except Aereo wasn't allowed to do that. They were shut down because the broadcasters didn't want them in business. Period.

 

[TechGeek]

Shavano[/url]":3vukk2cd]

Ostracus[/url]":3vukk2cd]

Moving forward, a lower court is still set to determine how much money Aereo owes in damages, "a number that could be in the tens of millions of dollars" WSJ notes.

Who got damaged?

Broadcasters. Aereo subscribers provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content. This doesn't apply to all Aereo's customers, but some of them. If the customer would have not watched broadcast TV at all without Aereo, then no harm was done to the broadcaster and they benefited from their increased viewer reach by increasing the number of eyeballs that saw their ads. But if you decided you didn't need to subscribe to cable because you had Aereo, that decreased the payment that your cable provider would have made to the broadcaster. Or if you did subscribe but chose to watch local stations mostly through Aereo instead of through the subscription service, that decreased the value that your cable company placed on carrying local channels at all and therefore helped them negotiate a lower price for carrying the channels.

It's really a shame that Aereo didn't work out a licensing agreement with the broadcasters because they delivered a useful service at a reasonable price. It would be a better world if both sides had been reasonable.

You know, there are a whole class of people who watch over the air tv and never pay anyone for it. Its called the advertising model. And last I checked, Aereo wasn't stripping out commercials. So how exactly are the broadcasters not getting paid?

 

[RndNum123]

TechGeek[/url]":mwitu5mo]

Shavano[/url]":mwitu5mo]

Ostracus[/url]":mwitu5mo]

Moving forward, a lower court is still set to determine how much money Aereo owes in damages, "a number that could be in the tens of millions of dollars" WSJ notes.

Who got damaged?

Broadcasters. Aereo subscribers provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content. This doesn't apply to all Aereo's customers, but some of them. If the customer would have not watched broadcast TV at all without Aereo, then no harm was done to the broadcaster and they benefited from their increased viewer reach by increasing the number of eyeballs that saw their ads. But if you decided you didn't need to subscribe to cable because you had Aereo, that decreased the payment that your cable provider would have made to the broadcaster. Or if you did subscribe but chose to watch local stations mostly through Aereo instead of through the subscription service, that decreased the value that your cable company placed on carrying local channels at all and therefore helped them negotiate a lower price for carrying the channels.

It's really a shame that Aereo didn't work out a licensing agreement with the broadcasters because they delivered a useful service at a reasonable price. It would be a better world if both sides had been reasonable.

You know, there are a whole class of people who watch over the air tv and never pay anyone for it. Its called the advertising model. And last I checked, Aereo wasn't stripping out commercials. So how exactly are the broadcasters not getting paid?

Unfortunately some weird companies like getting paid twice, from advertisers AND from broadband companies. That sucks.

 

[peragrin]

RndNum123[/url]":1l92m3xx]

TechGeek[/url]":1l92m3xx]

Shavano[/url]":1l92m3xx]

Ostracus[/url]":1l92m3xx]

Moving forward, a lower court is still set to determine how much money Aereo owes in damages, "a number that could be in the tens of millions of dollars" WSJ notes.

Who got damaged?

Broadcasters. Aereo subscribers provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content. This doesn't apply to all Aereo's customers, but some of them. If the customer would have not watched broadcast TV at all without Aereo, then no harm was done to the broadcaster and they benefited from their increased viewer reach by increasing the number of eyeballs that saw their ads. But if you decided you didn't need to subscribe to cable because you had Aereo, that decreased the payment that your cable provider would have made to the broadcaster. Or if you did subscribe but chose to watch local stations mostly through Aereo instead of through the subscription service, that decreased the value that your cable company placed on carrying local channels at all and therefore helped them negotiate a lower price for carrying the channels.

It's really a shame that Aereo didn't work out a licensing agreement with the broadcasters because they delivered a useful service at a reasonable price. It would be a better world if both sides had been reasonable.

You know, there are a whole class of people who watch over the air tv and never pay anyone for it. Its called the advertising model. And last I checked, Aereo wasn't stripping out commercials. So how exactly are the broadcasters not getting paid?

Unfortunately some weird companies like getting paid twice, from advertisers AND from broadband companies. That sucks.

You forgot getting paid a third time for cable, oh and don't forget government subsides from broadcasting a public option at all.

 

[ahmerali]

polarity[/url]":16fgerfw]Why exactly should broadcasters have any say in Aereo selling its technology, exactly? I wasn't aware copyright law had any provisions saying copyright holders could veto the sale of patents and such for tangentially related technologies. What legal theory gives them any say at all in this?

I for one am very hopeful that the law of unintended consequences works in the consumers' favor here. That's the silver lining in all of this - that someway, somehow, someone will come up with a way to break the oligopoly in such a manner that passes muster with the courts.

 

[BestUsernameEver]

TechGeek[/url]"9mz0ohv]

Shavano[/url]"9mz0ohv]

Ostracus[/url]"9mz0ohv]

Moving forward, a lower court is still set to determine how much money Aereo owes in damages, "a number that could be in the tens of millions of dollars" WSJ notes.

Who got damaged?

Broadcasters. Aereo subscribers provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content. This doesn't apply to all Aereo's customers, but some of them. If the customer would have not watched broadcast TV at all without Aereo, then no harm was done to the broadcaster and they benefited from their increased viewer reach by increasing the number of eyeballs that saw their ads. But if you decided you didn't need to subscribe to cable because you had Aereo, that decreased the payment that your cable provider would have made to the broadcaster. Or if you did subscribe but chose to watch local stations mostly through Aereo instead of through the subscription service, that decreased the value that your cable company placed on carrying local channels at all and therefore helped them negotiate a lower price for carrying the channels.

It's really a shame that Aereo didn't work out a licensing agreement with the broadcasters because they delivered a useful service at a reasonable price. It would be a better world if both sides had been reasonable.

You know, there are a whole class of people who watch over the air tv and never pay anyone for it. Its called the advertising model. And last I checked, Aereo wasn't stripping out commercials. So how exactly are the broadcasters not getting paid?

The broadcasters are trying to keep their old model alive. They want to keep using the airwaves to deliver content few people want anyway. Kind of like old news papers.

 

[LordEOD]

Strange that no one is mentioning anything about the protection of customer records.
Why should those records be available to the very parties many of these customers were (presumably) attempting to avoid?

 

[Sobad]

Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

 

[dotorg]

Shavano[/url]":30jmbrxh]

Ostracus[/url]":30jmbrxh]
Who got damaged?

Broadcasters. Aereo subscribers provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content. This doesn't apply to all Aereo's customers, but some of them. If the customer would have not watched broadcast TV at all without Aereo, then no harm was done to the broadcaster and they benefited from their increased viewer reach by increasing the number of eyeballs that saw their ads. But if you decided you didn't need to subscribe to cable because you had Aereo, that decreased the payment that your cable provider would have made to the broadcaster. Or if you did subscribe but chose to watch local stations mostly through Aereo instead of through the subscription service, that decreased the value that your cable company placed on carrying local channels at all and therefore helped them negotiate a lower price for carrying the channels.

I'm not responsible for a broadcaster's potential revenue stream. I was an active Aereo user and watched far more broadcast TV than I would have otherwise. I have no idea what you mean by "provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content". Aereo didn't pull ads from the shows. It gave me exactly what I'd have received with my own antenna, assuming there was a place to put it in my apartment not surrounded with a foot of masonry and rebar.

The alternative has been that I just don't watch broadcast TV anymore. It's not been a massive loss.

 

[RndNum123]

peragrin[/url]":3hfzdhc9]

RndNum123[/url]":3hfzdhc9]

TechGeek[/url]":3hfzdhc9]

Shavano[/url]":3hfzdhc9]

Ostracus[/url]":3hfzdhc9]

Moving forward, a lower court is still set to determine how much money Aereo owes in damages, "a number that could be in the tens of millions of dollars" WSJ notes.

Who got damaged?

Broadcasters. Aereo subscribers provided their customers with a way to bypass the means by which broadcasters would have otherwise been paid for their content. This doesn't apply to all Aereo's customers, but some of them. If the customer would have not watched broadcast TV at all without Aereo, then no harm was done to the broadcaster and they benefited from their increased viewer reach by increasing the number of eyeballs that saw their ads. But if you decided you didn't need to subscribe to cable because you had Aereo, that decreased the payment that your cable provider would have made to the broadcaster. Or if you did subscribe but chose to watch local stations mostly through Aereo instead of through the subscription service, that decreased the value that your cable company placed on carrying local channels at all and therefore helped them negotiate a lower price for carrying the channels.

It's really a shame that Aereo didn't work out a licensing agreement with the broadcasters because they delivered a useful service at a reasonable price. It would be a better world if both sides had been reasonable.

You know, there are a whole class of people who watch over the air tv and never pay anyone for it. Its called the advertising model. And last I checked, Aereo wasn't stripping out commercials. So how exactly are the broadcasters not getting paid?

Unfortunately some weird companies like getting paid twice, from advertisers AND from broadband companies. That sucks.

You forgot getting paid a third time for cable, oh and don't forget government subsides from broadcasting a public option at all.

Yes, especially the gov subsides are the part that makes me thinking about some laws. Wasn't the use of public airwaves (broadcasters are allowed to use them In the first place) for broadcasting a means to deliver information (more cheaply) to users. So when someone catches these airwaves and tries to enhance the "delivery" to users, isn't this company helping to bring information to the public as the original law wanted?

 

[hpsgrad]

Sobad[/url]":14cnjeo1]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

The lead sentence in the article we're commenting on contains the phrase 'bankruptcy court', which might indicate that Aereo is in the process of bankruptcy. Since they're selling/auctioning their technology, I assumed that they are in the process of ch 7 bankruptcy. The reuters article linked in that sentence indicates that Aereo entered bankruptcy in Nov., but does not specify which chapter they're using. I haven't done any further research, except to re-read the ars technica article.

 

[Doc Spector]

Sobad[/url]":1ifl2yxx]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

Which part of "bankruptcy judge" in the title confused you?

 

[zer0x1A4]

hpsgrad[/url]":35tatv6n]
I took it to be the case that the broadcasters get a say because they are the ones to whom Aereo owes money.

I thought the same thing. However you'd almost think they would allow them to sell all they want in hopes that they maximize their return on selling the portfolio of patents and tech in that case because that would maximize their own payout from the infringement/bankruptcy. Then sit back and wait for any of the new buyers to use the technology in a way that infringes again and rinse + repeat cycle. Perhaps on one side they must act as a filter here to approve the intended use by the buyer (s) to reduce the likely hood there will be a repeat case of infringement by ironing out the details upfront. Or perhaps they're just preparing their legal arguments early on for the next round.

 

[Doc Spector]

zer0x1A4[/url]":3b0f3wte]

hpsgrad[/url]":3b0f3wte]
I took it to be the case that the broadcasters get a say because they are the ones to whom Aereo owes money.

I thought the same thing. However you'd almost think they would allow them to sell all they want in hopes that they maximize their return on selling the portfolio of patents and tech in that case because that would maximize their own payout from the infringement/bankruptcy. Then sit back and wait for any of the new buyers to use the technology in a way that infringes again and rinse + repeat cycle. Perhaps on one side they must act as a filter here to approve the intended use by the buyer (s) to reduce the likely hood there will be a repeat case of infringement by ironing out the details upfront. Or perhaps they're just preparing their legal arguments early on for the next round.

Think longer term. Aereo is dead, vanquished by the copyright laws. But... if they sell their technology to someone who wants to use it in the same way, the broadcasters have to go to court all over again... which is not cheap. The broadcasters want to make sure that the tech is sold to either A) somebody who won't use it to threaten broadcaster's revenues at all, or B) someone who'll share their profits with broadcasters via a licensing deal favorable to the broadcasters. Making a few extra bucks in the short term wouldn't make up for costing them another huge court fight.

 

[fcx56]

Doc Spector[/url]":1w7689j4]

I'm not responsible for a broadcaster's potential revenue stream. I was an active Aereo user and watched far more broadcast TV than I would have otherwise.

So... you used far more of the broadcasters' licensed content, but you don't want to pay them for any of it.

Yeah, he never watched any of the five four-minute commercial breaks per hour!

 

[FrankM]

fcx56[/url]":3lok8cog]

Doc Spector[/url]":3lok8cog]

I'm not responsible for a broadcaster's potential revenue stream. I was an active Aereo user and watched far more broadcast TV than I would have otherwise.

So... you used far more of the broadcasters' licensed content, but you don't want to pay them for any of it.

Yeah, he never watched any of the five four-minute commercial breaks per hour!

Only five? I thought there were about fifteen four-minute commercial breaks per hour

By the way, marketers have figured out that people can skip commercials, and that commercials aren't bundled with the show when it gets streamed, so there's been a shift toward product placement inside the shows. Broadcasters find this annoying because they get less revenue that way, and none at all if the show is syndicated.

 

[cmacd]

Vapur9[/url]":uqjtkj0i]I hope we get to hear about what the actual objections will be. Like if someone wants to put up an antenna at their residence to stream to the device of choice when they travel overseas, or if an antenna was placed in city spots with better reception to stream to someone's computer ... or else adapting the technology for radio when commutes cut off reception inside of tunnels.

Slingbox already exists, and is probably cheaper.

 

[FrankM]

Vapur9[/url]":14hqdwk2]I hope we get to hear about what the actual objections will be. Like if someone wants to put up an antenna at their residence to stream to the device of choice when they travel overseas, or if an antenna was placed in city spots with better reception to stream to someone's computer ... or else adapting the technology for radio when commutes cut off reception inside of tunnels.

There won't be any individuals buying individual dime-sized antennas. This is rack-mounted equipment unsuited for home use.

It'll be interesting when someone outside Aereo tests the equipment and demonstrates unambiguously that a single dime-sized antenna cannot receive an HDTV signal (most everyone who understands radio physics insists that the whole bank acts as a single antenna with multiple taps). The good news for Aereo is that damages will already be determined by then.

 

[Sobad]

Doc Spector[/url]":1yfi2uqk]

Sobad[/url]":1yfi2uqk]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

Which part of "bankruptcy judge" in the title confused you?

Which part of "just walk away?" confused you?

 

[Doc Spector]

Sobad[/url]":2hgxj2ug]

Doc Spector[/url]":2hgxj2ug]

Sobad[/url]":2hgxj2ug]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

Which part of "bankruptcy judge" in the title confused you?

Which part of "just walk away?" confused you?

If you're ALREADY in bankruptcy court, it's kind of hard to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Do you not get that?

 

[Sobad]

Doc Spector[/url]":2r34x8wm]

Sobad[/url]":2r34x8wm]

Doc Spector[/url]":2r34x8wm]

Sobad[/url]":2r34x8wm]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

Which part of "bankruptcy judge" in the title confused you?

Which part of "just walk away?" confused you?

If you're ALREADY in bankruptcy court, it's kind of hard to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Do you not get that?

I only understand how personal bankruptcy works, corporations confuse me since they get to be treated as "people" only when it serves them. Aereo is effectively dead, I don't understand why this is such a drawn out process for them. Can't they file, disband the company and walk away? They are a private company anyway so there are no shareholders they are beholden to.

Edit: My confusion is more why didn't they file CH7, their business model is fucked why don't they just walk away and try again?

 

[Fingolfin]

I pay nothing to watch my shows. I just have to go up on the roof to readjust the 30 year old antenna on occasion.
As dotorg pointed out, if the broadcasters were smart they should have worked with Aereo to ensure they were keeping eyes on their content.

 

[FrankM]

Sobad[/url]":7vxm878q]

Doc Spector[/url]":7vxm878q]

Sobad[/url]":7vxm878q]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

Which part of "bankruptcy judge" in the title confused you?

Which part of "just walk away?" confused you?

Filing for bankruptcy is not a get-out-of-debt-free card. An organization needs to submit to the accounting version of a colonoscopy, and the scope doesn't come out until the judge decides that all of the creditors have been made as whole as possible. Then, and only then, can you "walk away."

Since the broadcasters have a tort claim against the company, they are in basically the same category as the creditors.

 

[StillGridlocked]

A cup of coffee says one of the networks will buy it at auction.

 

[Andara]

Sobad[/url]":3t8s4giz]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

That's not how bankruptcy works.

First, you can't just walk away, you have to go through the proceedings, which involve getting all of your assets together and selling them to pay off as many of your debts as possible (which is what this auction is about).

Second, you can't walk away from judgments through bankruptcy. There are certain debts that never go away: Lawsuits, student loans, child support, etc.

hpsgrad[/url]":3t8s4giz]The reuters article linked in that sentence indicates that Aereo entered bankruptcy in Nov., but does not specify which chapter they're using.

Chapter 11 is for restructuring when a company is attempting to stay in business.

As Aereo can't stay in business at all, I'm fairly certain this is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with all of the writeoffs that allows.

 

[hpsgrad]

Andara[/url]":2mwx9dh2]

Sobad[/url]":2mwx9dh2]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

That's not how bankruptcy works.

First, you can't just walk away, you have to go through the proceedings, which involve getting all of your assets together and selling them to pay off as many of your debts as possible (which is what this auction is about).

Second, you can't walk away from judgments through bankruptcy. There are certain debts that never go away: Lawsuits, student loans, child support, etc.

hpsgrad[/url]":2mwx9dh2]The reuters article linked in that sentence indicates that Aereo entered bankruptcy in Nov., but does not specify which chapter they're using.

Chapter 11 is for restructuring when a company is attempting to stay in business.

As Aereo can't stay in business at all, I'm fairly certain this is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with all of the writeoffs that allows.

Aereo's website says they filed for Ch. 11. I would not have guessed that. I also can't think of what they'd try to do next, but then again, I just work for a living instead of running a big business.

 

[Doc Spector]

Sobad[/url]":386m65kz]

Doc Spector[/url]":386m65kz]

Sobad[/url]":386m65kz]

Doc Spector[/url]":386m65kz]

Sobad[/url]":386m65kz]Can't the Aereo folks just file chapter 7 or 11 or whichever one is applicable and just walk away?

Which part of "bankruptcy judge" in the title confused you?

Which part of "just walk away?" confused you?

If you're ALREADY in bankruptcy court, it's kind of hard to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Do you not get that?

I only understand how personal bankruptcy works, corporations confuse me since they get to be treated as "people" only when it serves them. Aereo is effectively dead, I don't understand why this is such a drawn out process for them. Can't they file, disband the company and walk away? They are a private company anyway so there are no shareholders they are beholden to.

Edit: My confusion is more why didn't they file CH7, their business model is fucked why don't they just walk away and try again?

Among other possible reasons, it might not have been their idea. Creditors can force you into involuntary bankruptcy. (I don't know if this is a voluntary or involuntary BK proceeding, either.)
They probably hoped they'd be able to hold on to whatever part of their business model wasn't killed when they were found to be infringing copyright... which would require that they pay the creditors at least as much as they'd get in a chapter 7.
In any case, you can't just "walk away". If you walk away from your bankruptcy filing, the judge doesn't discharge your debts, and your creditors start doing things like asking the courts to use clawback provisions to do things like reclaim anything that was paid to management. I trust you can see why management would want to avoid that. For private companies, you also start to get discussions of "piercing the corporate veil", which allows creditors to start pursuing the owners' personal assets to satisfy their claims. I trust you can see why ownership wants to avoid that.

So, no, "walking away" isn't one of the options on the table.

 

[Doc Spector]

First, you can't just walk away, you have to go through the proceedings, which involve getting all of your assets together and selling them to pay off as many of your debts as possible (which is what this auction is about).

Second, you can't walk away from judgments through bankruptcy. There are certain debts that never go away: Lawsuits, student loans, child support, etc.

Actually, you CAN walk away from most judgments. Or, more correctly stated, the bankruptcy court will discharge them for you. The main exceptions are intentional torts, and some professional negligence judgments. (Your state may have different rules, consult an attorney licensed in your state if you are considering bankruptcy.)

As Aereo can't stay in business at all, I'm fairly certain this is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with all of the writeoffs that allows.

Depends on when they filed (and assuming they filed rather than got dragged into involuntary bankruptcy). At first, Aereo was trying to hold on to part of their business model that wasn't ruled infringing. Later on, the hammer fell.

 

[Eurynom0s]

Shavano[/url]":6xm75qda]

coachmark2[/url]":6xm75qda]

Aereo will allow the broadcasters to attend any auction, to oppose any individual sales, and to examine Aereo's customer records. Aereo will also provide the broadcasting group weekly updates on the status of the sale process.

WTF for? That's just inconsistent and illogical. Infringement judgments are to stop you from doing an activity. It's not like Aereo's tech is now contraband... And even if it were, that's for the flipping federal government to decide, not the stupid broadcasters!

No, it's not contraband. It would be best for everybody if Aereo re-formed as a company doing just what it did before but paying a negotiated fee to carry broadcaster content.

They did try to buy the retransmission rights after SCOTUS ruled that they were too much like a cable company to be allowed to operate without paying the retransmission fees. Then they were prevented from doing that because "they weren't really a cable company" (i.e. the broadcasters just didn't want to let them and, IIRC, got the FCC to do their bidding).

 

[hpsgrad]

Doc Spector[/url]":xlsrxi12]

First, you can't just walk away, you have to go through the proceedings, which involve getting all of your assets together and selling them to pay off as many of your debts as possible (which is what this auction is about).

Second, you can't walk away from judgments through bankruptcy. There are certain debts that never go away: Lawsuits, student loans, child support, etc.

Actually, you CAN walk away from most judgments. Or, more correctly stated, the bankruptcy court will discharge them for you. The main exceptions are intentional torts, and some professional negligence judgments. (Your state may have different rules, consult an attorney licensed in your state if you are considering bankruptcy.)

As Aereo can't stay in business at all, I'm fairly certain this is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with all of the writeoffs that allows.

Depends on when they filed (and assuming they filed rather than got dragged into involuntary bankruptcy). At first, Aereo was trying to hold on to part of their business model that wasn't ruled infringing. Later on, the hammer fell.

http://www.aereo.com

says that they filed for ch 11 bankruptcy in November, 2014. Someone who knows more about bankruptcy law (and the filings in this particular case) would have to speak to Aereo's options and plans.

 

[bwcbwc]

hpsgrad[/url]":2t255x0f]

polarity[/url]":2t255x0f]Why exactly should broadcasters have any say in Aereo selling its technology, exactly? I wasn't aware copyright law had any provisions saying copyright holders could veto the sale of patents and such for tangentially related technologies. What legal theory gives them any say at all in this?

I took it to be the case that the broadcasters get a say because they are the ones to whom Aereo owes money.

As Aereo has declared bankruptcy, their creditors have a say in how those assets can be sold. Among other things, this is to prevent fraudulent $1 auctions to shell companies secretly owned by Aereo investors. And as winners of a copyright judgment, the broadcasters are among the first in line to be paid out of Aereo's assets, so they would be some of the most likely creditors to be selected by the court for approving such sales.