Public Performance Rights in U.S. Copyright Law: Recent Decisions

Similar documents
ABC v. Aereo: Public Performance, and the Future of the Cloud. Seth D. Greenstein October 16, 2014

US Supreme Court Issues Important Opinion on Copyright Act in ABC v. Aereo Right of Public Performance TV Broadcasting

Internet TV: Hopefully Coming to a Computer Screen Near You

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

Private Performances for the Public Good: Aereo and the Battle for Broadcast s Soul

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al. Petitioners, v. AEREO, INC., F/K/A BAMBOOM LABS, INC., Respondent.

Case: Document: Page: 1 04/01/ (Argued: November 30, 2012 Decided: April 1, 2013)

Case 1:12-cv AJN Document 104 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 44

No IN THE ~uprem~ ~ourt o[ ~ ~n~b. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., Respondents.

Disruption and Deference

Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Disruption and Deference

ADVISORY Communications and Media

Supreme Court of the United States

~uprrmr ~urt ~f tl~ ~ln~t~i~ ~tat~

Title VI in an IP Video World

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al., AEREO KILLER LLC, et al.

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al. Petitioners, v. AEREO, INC., F/K/A BAMBOOM LABS, INC., Respondent.

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Telecommuncations - Recent Developments

Digital Television Transition in US

Copyright Protection in the Cable Television Industry: Satellite Retransmission and the Passive Carrier Exemption

Telecommunications, Pay Television, and Related Services 119

47 USC 535. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

CRS Report for Congress

Aereo Dynamics: User Rights and The Future of Internet Retransmission in Canada

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

United Video, Inc. v. FCC: Just Another Episode in Syndex Regulation

COMMENTS OF THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, 21 st CENTURY FOX, INC. AND CBS CORPORATION

Announcement by Society ARTISJUS Hungarian Bureau for the Protection of Authors Rights (Cable 18)

COMMUNICATIONS OUTLOOK 1999

LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS PROFILES AND TRENDS FOR 2014 AND BEYOND

SOME PROGRAMMING BASICS: PERSPECTIVE FROM A SATELLITE LAWYER MICHAEL NILSSON HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP MAY 2008

Charles B. Goldfarb Specialist in Telecommunications Policy. January 3, CRS Report for Congress

Perspectives from FSF Scholars January 20, 2014 Vol. 9, No. 5

Metuchen Public Educational and Governmental (PEG) Television Station. Policies & Procedures

OGC Issues Roundtable

Appendix S: Franchising and Cable TV

REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Negotiating Group on Intellectual Property Rights Bilateral screening Chapter 7

Cable Television and Copyright: Legislation and the Marketplace Model

Are the Courts and Congress Singing A Different Tune When It Comes to Music. Prof Michael Landau Georgia State University 16 May 2014

F I L E D May 30, 2013

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Regulatory Issues Affecting the Internet. Jeff Guldner

MAJOR COURT DECISIONS, 2009

TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY UPDATE DEVELOPMENTS IN Matthew C. Ames Hubacher & Ames, PLLC November 19, 2014

WikiLeaks Document Release

Public Access to Cable Television

FCC's Authority to Preempt State Regulations of Pay Cable Television Upheld (Brookhaven Cable T.V., Inc. v. Kelly)

Who Owns the Air: Unscrambling the Satellite Viewing Rights Dilemma

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

2015 Rate Change FAQs

Reauthorizing the Satellite Home Viewing Provisions in the Communications Act and the Copyright Act: Issues for Congress

S Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :35 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017

Must-Carry and Retransmission Consent 2017

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554

Quincy Cable and Its Effect on the Access Provisions of the 1984 Cable Act

The Supreme Court Turns Its Back on the First Amendment, the 1992 Cable Act and the First Amendment: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., ET AL., AEREOKILLER LLC, ET AL.

LASERING IN ON THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: CAN THE FCC REGULATE LASER COMMUNICATIONS?


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

DOES RETRANSMISSION CONSENT NEED FIXING? (OR DO CONSUMERS NEED HELP SO THEY CAN WATCH THE SUPER BOWL, WORLD SERIES, AND ACADEMY AWARDS?

KCRT. Prepared by: Sue Hartman, Director. Assisted by: Cecily McMahan

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services: Resolving Irregularities in Regulation?

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPORT AND ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF ITTA THE VOICE OF AMERICA S BROADBAND PROVIDERS

THE SPORTS BROADCASTING SIGNALS (MANDATORY SHARING WITH PRASAR BHARATI) ACT, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

The Changing Regulatory Terrain of Cable Television

Satellite Transmissions: The Laws and Policies that Affect the Programmers, Individual Earth Stations and SMATV (private Cable) Owners

AUTHORIZATION (and ASSIGNMENT)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 7 March 2013 *

IFTA INTERNATIONAL SCHEDULE OF DEFINITIONS The IFTA Definitions are available on-line at

Licensing & Regulation #379

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

THE SPORTS BROADCASTING SIGNALS (MANDATORY SHARING WITH PRASAR BHARATI) BILL, 2007

Trademark Infringement: No Royalties for K-Tel's False Kingsmen

Cable TV Users Taxes: A First Amendment Challenge, 8 Computer L.J. 257 (1988)

OECD COMMUNICATIONS OUTLOOK 2001 Broadcasting Section

Introduction. Fiber Optics, technology update, applications, planning considerations

Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Communications Law Commons

Head-end in the Sky - A Digital Reality

Creeping CANCOM: Canadian Distribution of American Television Programming to Alaskan Cable Systems

July 3, 2012 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Register your product and get support at SDV5122/27. EN User manual

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C

AUSTRALIAN SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION AND RADIO ASSOCIATION

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Submission Digital Conversion of Self-Help Television Retransmission Sites

Ensure Changes to the Communications Act Protect Broadcast Viewers

CATV Regulation A Complex Problem of Regulatory Jurisdiction

Case 1:10-cv LFG-RLP Document 1 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Jennifer Hess Asher. Volume 23 Issue 3 Article 8

Council of the European Union Brussels, 26 June 2017 (OR. en)

14380/17 LK/np 1 DGG 3B

Transcription:

Public Performance Rights in U.S. Copyright Law: Recent Decisions Professor Tyler T. Ochoa High Tech Law Institute Santa Clara University School of Law April 5, 2013

Public Performance Cases WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. 691 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012) WNET v. Aereo, Inc. F.3d (2d Cir. April 1, 2013) Fox Television Stations v. BarryDriller Content Systems, PLC F. Supp. 2d (C.D. Cal. 2012)

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. On September 13, 2010, ivi began streaming plaintiffs' copyrighted programming over the Internet, live, for profit, and without plaintiffs' consent. ivi used an antenna to receive live broadcast signals in New York and Seattle (and later Los Angeles and Chicago), and retransmitted the signal over the Internet. ivi subscribers paid $4.99 per month to receive broadcast signals over Internet. retransmission is a public performance under Act ivi claimed it was a cable system entitled to a compulsory license under 111 of the Copyright Act.

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. 111(f)(3) defines a cable system as a facility... [that] receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the [FCC], and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public... Statutory text alone is ambiguous; but intent was to support local retransmission. Congress amended Act to include microwave transmission and enacted compulsory license for satellite retransmission

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. The Copyright Office has consistently concluded that Internet retransmission services are not cable systems and do not qualify for 111 compulsory licenses. Copyright Office points to several statutory hints that cable systems are local retransmissions only, and are limited to local networks regulated by the FCC. Copyright Office s position is reasonable and persuasive, and is consistent with the statute. It is therefore entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)

WNET v. Aereo, Inc. In February 2012, Aereo began streaming plaintiffs' copyrighted programming over the Internet, live, for profit, and without plaintiffs' consent. Aereo uses thousands of tiny antennas embedded in circuit boards to receive live broadcast signals in New York. When a subscriber logs on, the user is assigned one of these antennas, and the signal is retransmitted to that user over the Internet. Like ivi users, Aereo users can pause or rewind to watch later. Aereo also allows a user to record a program to watch later. Aereo concedes retransmission is a performance under the Act; but contests whether it is public

WNET v. Aereo, Inc. 101: To perform or display a work publicly means (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of a work to a place specified in clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it at the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, Inc. 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (aka Cablevision) Cablevision (cable system, authorized retransmitter under statutory compulsory license) offered its subscribers a remote storage digital video recorder (RS-DVR) From user s standpoint, functions like a regular DVR: enables user to record programs to view at later time. Assigned hard disk space at cable head-end to each user; when user records a program, it is stored on hard disk; on playback, transmitted to that user

Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, Inc. In Cablevision, Second Circuit held that cable system was NOT violating the public performance right (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance... to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it at the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. HELD: Each transmission is a private performance. The members of the public capable of receiving the performance are only the subscriber who recorded it (and members of the subscriber s family).

WNET v. Aereo, Inc. Plaintiffs argue that Cablevision is distinguishable, because that case involved time-shifting, while this case involves people watching broadcasting live REJECTED. Nothing in Cablevision turned on the fact that programs were being recorded for playback at a later time. HELD: Aereo s system is materially identical to the RS-DVR system at issue in Cablevision. Aereo s system creates a unique copy for each subscriber who requests it. Each transmission that Aereo makes to a subscriber is made from that subscriber s unique copy. Each unique copy is transmitted solely to the subscriber who requested that it be made.

Fox TV Stations v. BarryDriller Content Sys. Service enables users to access free over-the-air broadcast television over the Internet, via antennas and hard disks located at defendant s facilities, in which a user is assigned a particular antenna and data feed that is accessible only to that user HELD: Service is a public performance and is preliminarily enjoined within the Ninth Circuit C.D. Cal. rejects the Aereo court s reliance on the Second Circuit s unique copy doctrine