Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the recent important US Supreme Court decision on Aereo’s new technology for transmission of programs. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
ABC and other networks filed a lawsuit, actually an injunction, against Aereo, Inc. (Aereo) which was offering a user-friendly technology and service that allow its subscribers to watch programs that are currently airing on network television or record programs that will air in the future over the Internet. The lower courts refused to enjoin Aereo. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
So, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the lawsuit/petition, and held that Aereo’s transmission violated “the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause, when it sells its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air.”
Aereo’s technology and service allowed subscribers to watch live television as well as record and watch shows on Internet-enabled devices including mobile phones. Aereo’s architecture is innovative and impressive in that the architecture Aereo’s mechanism acts as a regular television antenna, a recording device, and an application that makes these services work on devices other than televisions and computers. Aereohas been available only to subscribers in the New York City area offering only New York City local channels. This was a test program, and the test has been remarkably successful.
But Aereo did not have a license from the copyright holders of the programs to record or transmit their programs. That’s the crux of the complaints/lawsuits against Aereo.
The simple question in the petition/lawsuit was: Does Aereo’s technology and architecture violate the Copyright act?
Aereo argued that, as a result of its unique architecture and technology, since the transmissions sent to each customer such transmissions must be considered as individual “private” performances and therefore, there was no infringement of the Copyright act.
However, the Court, in a six-to-three decision, disagreed with Aereo and rejected that argument. In its analysis, the Court stated that the ultimate purpose of Aereo’s system – picking up broadcast signals and retransmitting them to subscribers – was similar to the cable systems. And if cable systems require a license, then why not Aereo. While Aereo architecture was impressive, the ultimate output was no different from cable systems. The Court, further, found that since US Congress had expressly targeted the cable system’s activity in the 1976 Copyright Act the Act was applicable to Aereo also.
Those that disagree with the Court’s analysis and conclusion worry that this decision will stifle innovation, and that it injects uncertainty in the interpretation and understanding of the Copyright. And those defending the Court’s decision argue that the Court’s holding was narrow and focused, and should not have adverse impact on creativity and innovation.
The case is ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
ABC and other networks filed a lawsuit, actually an injunction, against Aereo, Inc. (Aereo) which was offering a user-friendly technology and service that allow its subscribers to watch programs that are currently airing on network television or record programs that will air in the future over the Internet. The lower courts refused to enjoin Aereo. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit
So, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the lawsuit/petition, and held that Aereo’s transmission violated “the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause, when it sells its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air.”
Aereo’s technology and service allowed subscribers to watch live television as well as record and watch shows on Internet-enabled devices including mobile phones. Aereo’s architecture is innovative and impressive in that the architecture Aereo’s mechanism acts as a regular television antenna, a recording device, and an application that makes these services work on devices other than televisions and computers. Aereohas been available only to subscribers in the New York City area offering only New York City local channels. This was a test program, and the test has been remarkably successful.
But Aereo did not have a license from the copyright holders of the programs to record or transmit their programs. That’s the crux of the complaints/lawsuits against Aereo.
The simple question in the petition/lawsuit was: Does Aereo’s technology and architecture violate the Copyright act?
Aereo argued that, as a result of its unique architecture and technology, since the transmissions sent to each customer such transmissions must be considered as individual “private” performances and therefore, there was no infringement of the Copyright act.
However, the Court, in a six-to-three decision, disagreed with Aereo and rejected that argument. In its analysis, the Court stated that the ultimate purpose of Aereo’s system – picking up broadcast signals and retransmitting them to subscribers – was similar to the cable systems. And if cable systems require a license, then why not Aereo. While Aereo architecture was impressive, the ultimate output was no different from cable systems. The Court, further, found that since US Congress had expressly targeted the cable system’s activity in the 1976 Copyright Act the Act was applicable to Aereo also.
Those that disagree with the Court’s analysis and conclusion worry that this decision will stifle innovation, and that it injects uncertainty in the interpretation and understanding of the Copyright. And those defending the Court’s decision argue that the Court’s holding was narrow and focused, and should not have adverse impact on creativity and innovation.
The case is ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment