Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Aereo</i> Analysis: What Does the U.S. Sup. Ct.'s Ruling Mean?
In June, a 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that Aereo's streaming service ' which allowed customers to view over-the-air TV broadcasts via the Internet ' violated the broadcasters' public performance right under the Copyright Act. Applying what the dissent derided as “an improvised standard ('looks-like-cable-TV'),” the majority held that Aereo infringed copyrights owned by the television networks. The court was careful to attempt to limit the reach of its holding, leaving many issues as to different technologies unanswered. But however those questions may be resolved in future cases, the Supreme Court's decision appeared to doom the “view” functionality of Aereo's Internet/mobile device transmission service, and likely the company along with it. American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo Inc., 134 S.Ct. 896 (2014) ().
The bottom line: Notwithstanding Aereo's deployment of a complex transmission system carefully designed to avoid copyright infringement, the Supreme Court found Aereo liable for direct infringement on the ground that Aereo had “performed” the copyrighted works and that Aereo's performances were “public.” That conclusion was substantially driven by the court's sense that Aereo's viewing service was functionally equivalent to cable TV, and therefore a contrary result would be inconsistent with Congress's intent when it amended the Copyright Act in 1976 to apply copyright restrictions to cable.
Although the outcome was a huge defeat for defendant Aereo, its ultimate implications for other Internet-based services will be much debated. On the one hand, the majority sought to downplay fears that its “limited holding” would discourage the emergence or use of new technologies such as cloud computing, expressly disclaiming any conclusions as to remote DVR or cloud storage services. On the other hand, the dissent argued that the court's analysis would sow confusion and generate uncertainty regarding the application of the well-established “volitional act” standard and the distinction between direct and secondary liability for copyright infringement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?