Often in intellectual property disputes, a case can boil down to the simple issue of whether the ingenuity of one company crosses a line already established by another – whether the creative, diligent actions leading up to a fascinating new invention tread on the invaluable rights secured by another party. How far is too far?
Aereo® is a two-year-old start-up technology company that streams TV station signals to personal customer devices. Aereo® operates in thirteen cities and plans to start offering its service in Austin, Texas next week. Customers pay a fee (usually $8 to $12 a month) and are able to watch TV via the Internet. Each customer receives a small antenna which receives broadcast signals and enables a customer to record digital video via a cloud. Sounds like a tremendously clever and resourceful technological breakthrough, no? Not so fast. As you may expect, broadcasters like ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX have accused Aereo® of theft and unauthorized exploitation.
Broadcasters have taken Aereo® to court in various parts of the country. Last summer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, located in New York, declined to find that Aereo® had infringed on copyrighted work. The court held that Aereo® had not violated public performance rights granted to copyright owners. The plaintiffs of the case included WNET, WPIX, and PBS. However, this past February, the United States District Court for the District of Utah ruled that Aereo® would have to shut down operations in Utah and Colorado. There, the lawsuit was brought by FOX and other TV station owners. Judge Dale A. Kimball wrote that Aereo®’s device unacceptably transmits copyrighted programs to the public, thereby violating basic copyright protection. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 22 in the case of ABC, Inc. v. Aereo®. These cases all center on copyright law. An owner of a copyrighted work has the right to publicly perform that work. Broadcasters are arguing that Aereo® is violating their rights to control the public performance of copyrighted television material.
Aereo® argues that by giving each customer an antenna, it is the viewer that produces copies of the televised material, not Aereo® itself. The broadcasters argue that Aereo®’s actions violate copyright protection associated with television programming. The broadcasters contend that Aereo®’s actions, if held legal, would help cable and satellite companies avoid paying for television services which cost the broadcasters billions of dollars to create, acquire, and distribute. Broadcasters stand to lose quite a bit of profit from cable and satellite companies if the Supreme Court validates technology like that of Aereo®.
And so, the world waits for when the Supreme Court will weigh in on the copyright issues presented by the actions of Aereo®. Will the Court side with the Second Circuit and validate Aereo®’s actions? Will it instead favor Judge Kimball’s analysis and protect the purported interests of broadcasters? Aereo® technology is one that could revolutionize the way viewers watch TV. But has it crossed a line? It’s up to the highest court in the U.S. to decide.
Do you have a question about protecting your copyrights? The McHattie Law Firm can help!
(Neeraj Joshi)