Looks like Aereo is a no-go: the Supreme Court has ruled that the start-up, which aims to disrupt the Cable Cabal that is ruining our lives, violates copyright laws unless it pays networks for content.
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to the nation’s television networks on Wednesday, ruling that an upstart Internet company is violating copyright laws by transmitting programs without paying hefty licensing fees. In a 6-to-3 decision that kept the TV industry’s business model essentially intact, the court said that Aereo — a two-year-old start-up that streams shows to tablets, laptops and other devices — must pay the networks for content, as cable systems do. …
The decision dealt a potential death blow to Aereo and could discourage millions of consumers who have been increasingly clamoring for the type of service the company provides — sports and other live television streamed online, without the cost of a cable television bundle. If the ruling had gone the other way, it could have upended a television industry that has grown fearful of the disruptive force of Internet video. Aereo chief executive Chet Kanojia called the decision “a massive setback for the American consumer.’’
CNN, channeling the Princess Bride, calls Aereo “essentially dead” and can’t come up with real alternatives beyond the obvious: Roku boxes, Hulu, digital antennae. RIP, Aereo, unless you come back to storm the castle! You were a good idea.
Well, as their former copywriter I could tell you in about 1000 different ways and at varying lengths and tone of voice, but that would be insane and probably unethical. Nevertheless, Kickstarter hit a big milestone this week: a billion dollars have been pledged to projects. From there, it isn't hard to figure out how much revenue they've made, and Quartz is on it
Part One of a three-part series wherein I, an English Major, explain incentive stock options and how they work for employees at startups.
Netflix brought movies to your house, and a Seattle-based startup named TRED would like to bring cars you’re interested in buying to your house for you to test-drive, to see how it fits in your garage, etc. This is fine! But is it really necessary? It seems to solve a non-problem, which is having to go to a dealership to test out a car and see if you like it, but I suppose if you don’t have a ride to get to a dealership in the first place, this could be your answer.