American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Last updated
American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 22, 2014
Decided June 25, 2014
Full case nameAmerican Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Aereo, Inc., f.k.a. Bamboom Labs, Inc.
Docket no. 13-461
Citations573 U.S. 431 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2498; 189 L. Ed. 2d 476; 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961
Case history
PriorInjunction denied, Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); affirmed sub. nom., WNET v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 2013); rehearing en banc denied, 722 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 571 U.S. 1118(2014).
Holding
Aereo's retransmission of television broadcasts was a "public performance" of the networks' copyrighted work. The Copyright Act of 1976 forbids such performances without the permission of the holder of the copyright. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentScalia, joined by Thomas, Alito
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, [1] violated copyright laws.

Contents

Background

Cable companies are required by the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act to negotiate for retransmission consent, usually paying broadcasters for the right to carry their signals. Broadcasters argued that Aereo was a threat both to their business model by undermining the cable retransmission fees and the size of their audience. [2] Because the fees that cable companies paid for broadcast content could comprise up to 10% of a broadcaster's revenue, [3] broadcasters objected to Aereo's re-distribution of this content without paying any fees. Broadcasters have also identified Aereo as part of the cord-cutting trend among television audiences that poses a threat to broadcasters' advertising revenue. [4]

In somewhat similar cases, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted an injunction against Aereo's rival FilmOn, a similar service. However, the district court's injunction was legally binding only in its jurisdiction (including the West Coast of the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii) and is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Other competitors were blocked from providing service in Los Angeles and Seattle by similar injunctions. [5]

Federal court

On March 1, 2012, two weeks before Aereo's initial launch in New York City, Aereo was sued for copyright infringement by a consortium of major broadcasters, including CBS Corporation's CBS, Comcast's NBC, Disney's ABC and 21st Century Fox's Fox. [6] The broadcasters argued that Aereo infringed their copyrighted material because Aereo's streams constituted public performances. They sought a preliminary injunction against the company. [6] [7] On July 11, Federal Judge Alison Nathan denied this injunction, citing as precedent the 2008 Cablevision case, which established the legality of cloud-based streaming and DVR services. [8] [9] In response to the decision, the Aereo founder and CEO, Chet Kanojia, said, "Today's decision shows that when you are on the right side of the law, you can stand up, fight the Goliath and win." [10] In a subsequent interview with CNET, Kanojia asserted, "With one step, we changed the entire TV industry. The television industry and its evolution are now starting towards the Internet and that was stopped until Aereo came along.... And I think as consumers start migrating to the Internet, new programming and new content are going to come in." [11]

Second Circuit appeal

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Several other players in the industry, such as cable provider Cablevision, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Consumer Electronics Association, filed amicus briefs. [12] On April 1, 2013, the federal appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling by finding that Aereo's streams to subscribers were not "public performances" and thus did not constitute copyright infringement. [13] The appeals court also affirmed the earlier district court decision that denied the broadcasters a preliminary injunction against Aereo. [14] In response, News Corporation Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey stated that the company is contemplating taking Fox off the air and converting it to a cable-only channel: "We need to be able to be fairly compensated for our content... we can't sit idly by and let an entity steal our signal. We will move to a subscription model if that's our only recourse." [15] Univision and CBS have also stated that they may also follow and convert to cable-only. [16] [17]

Supreme Court

In October 2013, the broadcasters filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court to take up the issue. [18] On January 10, 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. [19] In February 2014, in advance of the case being taken up by the Supreme Court, a judge in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction against Aereo, blocking the service within the 10th District, which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and Yellowstone National Park. [20] On November 17, 2013, the National Football League and Major League Baseball filed a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court that warned that sports programming would likely migrate from broadcast to cable television and that Aereo may put the US in violation of several international treaties, which prohibit the retransmission of broadcast signals over the Internet without their copyright holders' consent. [21] The United States Department of Justice and United States Copyright Office also filed a joint brief in March 2014 that stated that Aereo's "system is clearly infringing." [22] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2014. [23]

Decision

The Court decided in favor of the broadcasters on June 25 in a 6–3 decision and remanded the case. The Court's decision describes Aereo as not being "simply an equipment provider" with an "overwhelming likeness to cable companies" that "performs petitioners' works 'publicly.'" Further, the Court adds that its decision should not discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies. [24]

Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented. Writing for the dissenting minority, Scalia quoted from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. and noted that the broadcasters had made similar predictions regarding the VCR. Like the final paragraph in that previous ruling, he stated that the Court should be in no position to make judgements on novel technologies and that Congress indeed has the task of determining if copyright laws should be modified to address those issues. [25]

The dissent continues and criticizes the majority's opinion calling it poorly reasoned because it relies on a "guilt by resemblance" standard, which states Aereo is performing because it "looks-like-cable-TV:"

That claim fails at the very outset because Aereo does not "perform" at all. The Court manages to reach the opposite conclusion only by disregarding widely accepted rules for service-provider liability and adopting in their place an improvised standard ("looks-like-cable-TV") that will sow confusion for years to come.

Subsequent developments

Even though the United States Supreme Court held Aereo was "performing" the broadcasters copyrighted material because Aereo "looks-like-cable-TV" and was similar to community antenna television (CATV) systems, Aereo could not continue its service under a compulsory license as a cable provider would, it was later held.

Doing its best to turn lemons into lemonade, Aereo now seeks to capitalize on the Supreme Court's comparison of it to a CATV system to argue that it is in fact a cable system that should be entitled to a compulsory license under § 111. This argument is unavailing for a number of reasons. [26]

On November 21, 2014, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. [27] [28] It was later purchased by the DVR company TiVo for $1 million in March 2015. [29] [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.</i>

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, was a copyright case about the Russian language weekly Russian Kurier in New York City that had copied and published various materials from Russian newspapers and news agency reports of Itar-TASS. The case was ultimately decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision was widely commented upon and the case is considered a landmark case because the court defined rules applicable in the U.S. on the extent to which the copyright laws of the country of origin or those of the U.S. apply in international disputes over copyright. The court held that to determine whether a claimant actually held the copyright on a work, the laws of the country of origin usually applied, but that to decide whether a copyright infringement had occurred and for possible remedies, the laws of the country where the infringement was claimed applied.

A digital video recorder (DVR) is an electronic device that records video in a digital format to a disk drive, USB flash drive, SD memory card, SSD or other local or networked mass storage device. The term includes set-top boxes with direct to disk recording, portable media players and TV gateways with recording capability, and digital camcorders. Personal computers are often connected to video capture devices and used as DVRs; in such cases the application software used to record video is an integral part of the DVR. Many DVRs are classified as consumer electronic devices; such devices may alternatively be referred to as personal video recorders (PVRs), particularly in Canada. Similar small devices with built-in displays and SSD support may be used for professional film or video production, as these recorders often do not have the limitations that built-in recorders in cameras have, offering wider codec support, the removal of recording time limitations and higher bitrates.

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), was a copyright and trademark case of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the applicability of the Lanham Act to a work in the public domain.

iCraveTV was a Canadian website, which operated from 1999 to 2000. The site offered streaming Internet broadcasts of the conventional television stations, both Canadian and American, that were available as over-the-air signals in Toronto.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

FilmOn is an Internet-based television provider owned by FilmOn.TV Networks Inc. Alki David had founded FilmOn.TV Networks in 2006. The company was involved in a prolonged legal case concerning streaming rights with CBS, Fox, and NBC between 2013 and 2017, with FilmOn ultimately settling.

In broadcasting, time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to after the live broadcasting. Typically, this refers to TV programming but it can also refer to radio shows via podcasts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TiVo Inc.</span> Former American corporation

TiVo Inc. was an American corporation with its primary product being its eponymous digital video recorder. While primarily operating in the United States, TiVO also operated in Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe. On September 8, 2016, TiVo Inc. was acquired by Rovi Corporation. The new entity became known as TiVo Corporation, which in turn, merged with Xperi in December 2019.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aereo</span> Technology company

Aereo was a technology company based in New York City that allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices. The service opened to customers in March 2012, and was backed by Barry Diller's IAC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hopper (DVR)</span>

Hopper is a line of digital video recording (DVR) set-top boxes offered by the U.S. direct-broadcast satellite television provider Dish Network. First introduced at Consumer Electronics Show in January 2012, the Hopper was released in March 2012 as a component of the provider's whole-home DVR system, which networks the main Hopper unit with smaller "Joey" set-top boxes to form a client-server architecture.

A carriage dispute is a disagreement over the right to "carry", that is, retransmit, a broadcaster's signal. Carriage disputes first occurred between broadcasters and cable companies and now include direct broadcast satellite and other multichannel video programming distributors.

<i>WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.</i> American legal case

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., was a copyright infringement case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant an injunction for the plaintiffs, barring ivi, Inc. from broadcasting television programming over the Internet. This decision set a precedent that broadcast television material can be protected by copyright and cannot be re-transmitted on the Internet without permission.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV</i>

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989, was a court case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which enjoined iCraveTV, a Canadian TV streaming website, from operating within the US after finding it in violation of 20th Century Fox's, and several other motion picture studios and television networks, copyrights and trademarks. Granted February 8, 2000, this injunction, along with continued legal pressure, led to the iCraveTV's demise just 3 months after its debut. As of March 28, 2019, the library is included due to Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Facts

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Locast</span> Former American over-the-top streaming television service

Locast was an American non-profit streaming television service that allowed users to view live streams of over-the-air television stations. The service was founded by attorney David Goodfriend under the banner of the Sports Fans Coalition.

References

  1. ↑ Boehret, Katherine. "Aereo Shines With Live TV on the Go". Wall Street Journal.
  2. ↑ Kang, Cecelia. "As users flock to iTunes, Hulu and Netflix, TV stations struggle to survive". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
  3. ↑ "CBS Keeps Broadcast Profitable Atop Retransmission, Syndication Fees ... For Now". Seeking Alpha. 2012-10-03. Retrieved 2013-05-07.
  4. ↑ Sandoval, Greg (3 June 2012). "A bet that Diller-backed Aereo TV startup wins its day in court". CNET. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
  5. ↑ "Aereo, amid challenges, looks ahead to possibilities". August 28, 2013. Archived from the original on October 1, 2013. Retrieved September 27, 2013.
  6. 1 2 King, Cecilia. "Broadcasters sue to stop Diller's Aereo streaming TV service". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 March 2012.
  7. ↑ Stewart, Christopher. "Networks Sue Aereo Streaming Start-Up". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 March 2012.
  8. ↑ American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 874F. Supp. 2d373 ( S.D.N.Y. 2012).
  9. ↑ Kramer, Staci. "Diller and Aereo win first round: injunction denied". PaidContent. Retrieved 11 July 2012.
  10. ↑ "AEREO PREVAILS IN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDING" (PDF).[ permanent dead link ]
  11. ↑ Sandoval, Greg. "Aereo's founder has broadcast TV in a headlock--now what? (Q&A)". CNET.
  12. ↑ Grotticelli, Michael. "Aereo gets support in legal case against broadcasters". BroadcastEngineering. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  13. ↑ WNET v. Aereo, Inc., 712F.3d676 ( 2d Cir. 2013).
  14. ↑ Stelter, Brian (April 1, 2013). "Aereo Wins Appeal; Trial Likely for Streaming TV". New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2013.
  15. ↑ "News Corp to Take Fox Off Air If Courts Back Aereo". Bloomberg. April 8, 2013. Retrieved April 10, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Aereo could bring down broadcast TV". CNN Money. April 9, 2013. Retrieved April 10, 2013.
  17. ↑ "CBS Says It Could Move To Cable In A 'Few Days' If Aereo Wins; Receives Several Offers To Help Pack Its Bags". Techdirt.com. May 1, 2013. Retrieved May 6, 2013.
  18. ↑ "Broadcasters Petition Supreme Court to Review Aereo Case". Adweek. October 11, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  19. ↑ Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case, Variety , January 10, 2014.
  20. ↑ "Aereo blocked in some Western states after ruling". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 19 Feb 2014. Archived from the original on 20 February 2014. Retrieved 4 Mar 2014.
  21. ↑ "NFL, Major League Baseball Warn That Aereo Could Trigger End of Free TV Game Broadcasts". Variety. November 17, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  22. ↑ Brian Stelter (4 Mar 2014). "Obama administration sides against Aereo". CNN Money. Retrieved 4 Mar 2014.
  23. ↑ Supreme Court to hear Aereo vs. big media case April 22, VentureBeat, February 11, 2014.
  24. ↑ American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,No. 13-461 , 573 U.S. ___(2014).
  25. ↑ American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U. S., (Scalia, dissenting slip op., at 12-13)
  26. ↑ Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 12-CV-1540, 2014 WL 5393867 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2014)
  27. ↑ "Aero Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition" (PDF). PacerMonitor. PacerMonitor. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
  28. ↑ Crook, Jordan (November 21, 2014). "Aereo Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy". TechCrunch . AOL . Retrieved November 21, 2014.
  29. ↑ Perez, Sarah (13 March 2014). "TiVo Receives Approval To Acquire Aereo Assets". TechCrunch. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
  30. ↑ "TiVo Acquires Aereo Assets". TiVo Press Releases. 13 March 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.