of 21
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
1/53
Internet TV and Copyright Law ! or Aereo vs. the TV " Industrial Com lex
#
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3.371 3.S171
Law & Technology
Professor Stephen LyonsMarch 13, 2015
Lee GesmerGesmer Updegrove LLP
gesmer.com, MassLawBog.com
http://gesmer.com/http://masslawbog.com/http://masslawbog.com/http://gesmer.com/
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
2/53
2
1. Reproduce ! i.e., copy "
2. Display Publicly
3. Prepare Derivative Works
4. Distribute Copies5. Perform Publicly 6. Digital audio transmission of sound recordings
Copyright’s Six Exclusive Rights
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
3/53
3
• Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios ! 1984 " ! the “Sony” or “Betamax” case” "
• Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings! 2008 # ! the “Cablevision case” "
• American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo ! 2014 "! “
Aereo” "
Three cases:
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
4/53
4
Legal Background
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
5/53
5
Concept 1: The “Fair Use” Privilege
Acts that would otherwise be in $ inging are excused for policy reasons
Common examples:
• Quotations in reviews/criticism• Parodies• News reporting • Biographies, scholarly research• Small portion/reasonable purposem
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
6/53
6
Fair Use
• “Time shifting”
• “Format shifting”• “Space/location” shifting
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
7/53
7
Concept 2: “Contributory Infringement”
Conduct that intentiona % y induces or encouragesin $ inging acts by others
Examples:
• Online service that encourages uploads ofcopyrighted content
• Online directory that encourages users tolink to copyrighted content
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
8/53
8
Contributory Infringement
However: “contributory” infringementrequires that rst there have been a “direct”infringement
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
9/53
9Concept 3: “Volition” or“Who Made the Copy?”
Examples:
• ISP computers automatically create an
infringing copy at the direction of users/ posters = no infringement• Copy shop/course pack created by shop
employees at request of teacher =infringement
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
10/53
10
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios ! 1984 "
! the “Sony case” "
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
11/53
11
Betamax Video Tape Recorder, circa 1980
Contributory infringement?
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
12/53
12
A VCR lobbyist “has said that the VCR is the greatest friend that the American lm producerever had.I say to you that the VCR is to the American lmproducer and the American public as the Bostonstrangler is to the woman home alone .”
Jack Valenti, President MPAA, 1982
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
13/53
The Sony Case
Sony not liable for creating a device thatsome customers may use for infringingpurposes, so long as the technology is capableof “substantial” or “commercially signicant”non#infringing uses.
13
First key holding:
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
14/53
The Sony Case
Private, non #commercial time#shifting of
television programs $
recording programs to watch at a more convenient time $ is “fairuse,” and therefore does not infringe thenetworks’ copyrights
14
Second key holding:
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
15/53
Sony 15
1. A copyright owner cannot establishcontributory infringement based on adevice that has a substantial non #infringing use
2. Non#commercial, in#home time #
shifting is fair use
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
16/53
161960s # Community Antenna
Television ! CATV "
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
17/53
17
The owner of copyright under this title has theexclusive rights to do and to authorize any of thefollowing:
… in the case of . . . motion pictures and otheraudiovisual works, to perform and display thecopyrighted work publicly ;
17 U.S. Code § 106
Copyright Act:
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
18/53
18
To perform or display a work “ publicly ” means $ ! 1 " to perform or display it at a place open to the public or atany place where a substantial number of persons outside of anormal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is
gathered; or! 2 " to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance ordisplay of the work . . . to the public, by means of any deviceor process, whether the members of the public capable ofreceiving the performance or display receive it in the sameplace or in separate places and at the same time or atdi% erent times.
17 U.S. Code § 101
Copyright Act:
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
19/53
19“to perform it . . . at any place where a substantial numberof persons outside of a normal circle of a family and itssocial acquaintances is gathered”
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
20/53
20
Jimi Hendrix performing Hey Joe atWoodstock ! copyright Billy Roberts "
“to perform it . . . at any place where a substantial numberof persons outside of a normal circle of a family and itssocial acquaintances is gathered”
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
21/53
21
“members of the public . . . receiving the performance ordisplay . . . in the same place . . . and at the same time . . ..”
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
22/53
22“members of the public . . . capable receiving theperformance or display . . . in separate places and at . . .di% erent times ” ! Transmit Clause "
7:00 p.m. Monday, Boston
10:00 p.m. Tuesday, New York
3:00 p.m. Saturday, Portland
• Cable• Satellite• VOD
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
23/53
23
Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings! 2008 # ! the“Cablevision" case "
C bl i i S i
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
24/53
1 46
25 “n”
24
Cust1
Cust25
Cust46
Cust“n”
Cablevision Remote DVR Service
Transmission ofpersonal copy
Remote DVR Server With “n” Subdirectories
Cablevision retransmits with permission
ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox ABC/NBC/CBS
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
25/53
25
Why Did Broadcasters Care?
• Impacted Nielsen ratings• Made ad#skipping easier
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
26/53
26
In determining whether a transmission is “to thepublic” the court should consider the particulartransmission, not the underlying work .
Cablevision # Public Performance Right
“Because each &remote DVR ' playbacktransmission is made to a single subscriber using asingle unique copy produced by that subscriber , we conclude that such transmissions are not
performances to the public and therefore do notinfringe any exclusive right of publicperformance”
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
27/53
27Cablevision # Reproduction Right
No infringement of reproduction rights
because subscribers, not Cablevision,controlled what TV programs to record.Cablevision only provided the hardware
that subscribers used.
Volition # Who makes the copy?
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
28/53
28Cablevision # Reproduction Right
“In determining who actually "makes" acopy, a signicant di% erence existsbetween making a request to a humanemployee, who then volitionally operatesthe copying system to make the copy,and issuing a command directly to asystem, which automatically obeyscommands and engages in no volitionalconduct .”
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
29/53
29
American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo ! 2014 "
! “ Aereo” "
A S i
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
30/53
1 46
25 “n”
30
Cust1
Cust25
Cust46
Cust“n”
Aereo Service
Transmission ofpersonal copy
Server With “n” Subdirectories
Aereo records
without permission
Over ! the !airTV broadcast
Devices: smart phones, tablets, iTV boxes ….
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
31/53
31
Aereo Mini # Antennas
32
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
32/53
32
33
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
33/53
33
Chet Kanojia , Aereo Founder
34
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
34/53
34
Barry Diller and 6+ VC investors
35
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
35/53
35
Aereo
• New York
• Boston• Utah• District of Columbia • California
Broadcaster law suits:
36
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
36/53
36
Why Do Broadcasters Care?
• “Retransmission” fees ~( 4 billion/year
• “Cut the wire” • “ Aereo business model”
37
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
37/53
37
"the very existence of broadcasttelevision as we know it" is at stake.
38
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
38/53
38
• We are a rental service no di% erent thanRadio Shack # we rent the antenna and
DVR, and the consumer controls theoperation. ! volition "
• Unique, individual antennas and copies
Aereo
Aereo argued:
39
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
39/53
39
Under Cablevision Aereo does not violatepublic performance right:
Aereo at Second Circuit ! 2013 "
“just as in Cablevision, the potential audience ofeach Aereo transmission is the single user whorequested that a program be recorded”
40
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
40/53
40
Aereo at Supreme Court ! 2014 "
“In light of the purpose and text of the TransmitClause, we conclude that when an entitycommunicates the same contemporaneouslyperceptible images and sounds to multiplepeople, it transmits a performance to them
regardless of the number of discretecommunications it makes ”
Justice Breyer:
41
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
41/53
41
Aereo at Supreme Court ! 2014 "
“Viewed in terms of Congress' regulatory objectives, why should any of these technological di% erencesmatter ? They concern the behind #the#scenes way in which Aereo delivers television programming to its viewers' screens. . . .”
42
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
42/53
42
Aereo Supreme Court Decision
“An entity that transmits a performance to individualsin their capacities as owners or possessors does notperform to "the public," whereas an entity like Aereothat transmits to large numbers of paying subscribers who lack any prior relationship to the works does soperform”
43
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
43/53
43
Dissenting Justices ! Scalia, Thomas, Alito "
The networks’ claim “fails at the very outset because Aereo does not ‘perform' at all. The Court manages toreach the opposite conclusion only by disregarding widely accepted rules for service#provider liability andadopting in their place an improvised standard ! "looks#like#cable#TV" " that will sow confusion for years to come.”
“Guilt by Resemblance” #
44
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
44/53
44
“It will take years, perhaps decades, to determine which automated systems now in existence are governed by the traditional volitional #conduct testand which get the Aereo treatment . ! Andautomated systems now in contemplation will haveto take their chances. "”
“Making matters worse, the Court provides nocriteria for determining when its cable #TV#lookalikerule applies.”
Dissent . . .
45
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
45/53
Aereo # Consequences?
45
46
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
46/53
46
Immediate Consequences
• Bankruptcy late 2014• >100 jobs lost• Broadcaster stocks surged
47
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
47/53
47
Aereo # The “Take Away”
•Where is the equip. located?•Who owns it?
• Creates incentive to design productsowned by consumers and based in theirhomes
48
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
48/53
48
Aereo and the “Cloud” # Dropbox
“All your stu% , anywhere”
49
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
49/53
9
CW: Dropbox is di % erent:• Aereo was built to stream
broadcast television withoutpermission
• DropBox doesn’t know what itsstreaming • Dropbox users are already
“possessors” of the les theystore
50
Fi C A l A F Di h
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
50/53
First Case to Apply Aereo: Fox v. DishNetwork ! C.D. Cal. 2015 "
“Dish Anywhere With Sling”
51
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
51/53
Fox v. Dish
• Aereo: its own equipment housed in acentralized warehouse outside
consumers’ homes• Dish w/Sling: programming does not
originate on external servers; consumers
access their own set#top boxes
52
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
52/53
Fox v. Dish
• User ! not Dish " initiates the “spaceshifting”; subscribers engage in the volitional conduct necessary for directinfringement
• Subscribers space shifting does notinfringe, so Dish not liable forcontributory infringement
53
8/9/2019 MIT Copyright Seminar 3-13-2015 (Reduced File Size)
53/53
Evasion Through Automation vs. ???Technological cat andmouse? # Who owns theequip., where is itbased,? Should
copyright law bestructured so that lawscan be circumventableby clever architecturaldesign and technological workarounds, as Aereoattempted?
vs.
A more exiblestandard that wouldevolve in the courts ! vs.Congress "?E.g.: Focus on whetherthe use is something in which the copyright
owner could reasonablyexpect a royalty ?