American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.
| American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 22, 2014 Decided June 25, 2014 |
|
| Full case name | American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Aereo, Inc., f.k.a. Bamboom Labs, Inc. |
| Docket nos. | 13-461 |
| Citations | 573 U.S. ___ (more) |
| 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 | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas, Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Copyright Act of 1976 | |
American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, allowing subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.
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. Because the fees cable companies pay for broadcast content can comprise up to 10% of a broadcaster's revenue, broadcasters object 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.
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 is only legally binding 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 have been blocked from providing service in Los Angeles and Seattle by similar injunctions.
...
Wikipedia