Aereo Wins Round One Against Broadcasters; Judge Rejects Injunction & Allows Service To Live
from the how-do-you-define-your-antenna dept
We've been covering the ridiculous legal fight over Aereo for a few months now. If you don't remember, Aereo is a company that offers -- for a fee -- to let people watch over-the-air broadcast TV (not cable, so just the small number of broadcast stations) online. Basically, what they do is set up antennas in a building in Brooklyn -- with one antenna per customer -- and then connect that antenna to the internet so the person can watch. The TV broadcasters flipped out and sued.As we've noted, in essence, this is another lawsuit that asks the question: do the copyright rules change depending on the length of your cable. That is, we know that it's legal to put up an antenna yourself and watch what you get. That's how broadcast TV works. We also know that it's almost certainly legal (it hasn't directly been tested) to take the legal TV you are accessing and then place-shift it so you can watch it over the internet (like with a Slingbox). So, if you combine those two things, why would it suddenly be illegal? The only real difference is that the antenna and the place shifting device sit in Aereo's building rather than in your own home. So, it's just that the "cable" length between the users and the devices is longer. Why should the length of the cable determine whether something is infringing or not? In a few related legal cases, the rulings have been mixed.
There was the ivi case, where the company offered a very similar service, but went with a different legal theory (relying on compulsory licensing rules)... which has so far been shot down in court. Then there was the Zediva case which relied on a very similar theory, but with DVDs (i.e., the company had a separate DVD player for each customer and let you watch movies streamed from that individual player). In that case, the court issued an injunction and the company shut down. Finally, there's the Cablevision ruling in which the TV guys went after Cablevision for offering a remote DVR feature. In a somewhat convoluted, but important, ruling, it was found that a remote DVR could be legal and non-infringing.
While the networks seriously argued that anything that caused anyone to think about cancelling their cable subscriptions could be illegal, the judge in the Aereo case, Alison Nathan, has refused to grant a preliminary injunction (basically doing the opposite of what happened in the Zediva ruling). Zediva was in a different court (and only reached the district court level anyway) so that ruling had little direct influence here. The Cablevision ruling, however, was pretty clearly instrumental in saving Aereo from being shut down.
Much of the ruling focused on what seems like a relatively tangential question: whether Aereo is really creating an individual antenna for each customer, or if it's just building a giant single antenna. More or less, it's a question of whether or not each individual antenna works with the others to better capture the signal. This is also known as a totally stupid debate. I mean, if you were to step back and just look at this from a common sense standpoint, you'd say the fact that Aereo has to set up a different antenna for each customer is pretty stupid. There's no technical reason to do so, only a legal one. It is an expense that serves only to satisfy a legal demand, which is by definition an inefficiency introduced into the market for no reason other than to keep lawyers happy.
But, here, the judge ruled that the individual antenna theory applies, and thanks almost entirely to the Cablevision ruling, there's no reason to issue a preliminary injunction. The networks tried some bizarre theories about why Cablevision didn't apply, but the judge saw through all of the attempts at misdirection:
Despite this creative attempt to escape from the express holding of Cablevision, for the reasons discussed below this Court finds itself constrained to reject the approach Plaintiffs urge. Contrary to Plaintiffs' arguments, the copies Aereo's system creates are not materially distinguishable from those in Cablevision, which found that the transmission was made from those copies rather than from the incoming signal. Moreover, Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish Cablevision based on time-shifting fails when confronted with the reasoning of that case, particularly considering that the Second Circuit's analysis was directly focused on the significance of Cablevision' s copies but did not say one word to suggest that time-shifting played any part in its holding.From there, the ruling goes into a wonderfully thorough debunking of the networks' attempt to ignore the ruling in Cablevision and a detailed explanation for why Aereo is quite similar to Cablevision. In the end, the judge also bars the preliminary injunction due to the lack of irreparable harm if the service keeps going for the duration of the trial. The court actually says that it can see how there is a clear case that the networks could suffer irreperable harm, in the form of losing viewers and advertisers -- but that since that "harm" is a longterm one, there's little reason to issue an injunction right now. Separately, the court recognizes that an injunction would almost certainly be "irreparable harm" for Aereo, as it would effectively be a death sentence (as was the case with Zediva). Either way, however, the level of detail the court uses in laying out why Aereo is so similar Cablevision does not bode well for the networks' overall case.
This case is far from over, but in round one, the networks' key argument appears to have taken quite a beating.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadcasting, dvr, place shifting, television
Companies: aereo, cablevision, ivi, zediva
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
corrections
fyi Mike.
Let's hope this cable length debacle ends with Aereo, that would certainly be nice. Then again if it does you know broadcasters will push for a new law to prevent it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the antenna manufacturers..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think of the antenna manufacturers..
At least from my childhood in the late 50's till 1985 I could always pick up some kind of usable Signal throughout the various places I lived in the Boston Area.
I tried Antenna here in P-Land and tried different kinds.
MAFIAA will find a way to stop Aereo and any other innovative idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think of the antenna manufacturers..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Selling is legal...Consentual sex is legal. Why isn't selling consentual sex legal???"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sexy legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://m.deadline.com/2012/07/aereo-lawsuit-local-tv-lawsuit-retransmission-consent/
Perhaps this will lead to the death of free OTA tv. If you can't beat them, take your ball and join the enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, someone who received the broadcasts via their own antenna wouldn't pay for the content either, unless you count buying and operating an antenna as "paying for content".
Aereo is just charging for the convenience of not having to operate your own antenna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why should anyone have to pay to retransmit something that is available to anyone free of charge? Aereo are charging for a service, not the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The satellite and cable providers pay broadcasters to retransmit content to its subscribers. How is Aereo doing anything different? Why should they not pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would it be different if I rented the antenna from radio shack?
My apartment owner doesn't pay the content providers for renting me the apartment where I put the antenna. Why should this company have to pay them for renting me space in their warehouse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://m.deadline.com/2012/07/aereo-lawsuit-local-tv-lawsuit-retransmission-consent/
Perhaps this will lead to the death of free OTA tv. If you can't beat them, take your ball and join the enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, what they are concerned about is that (a) it gets very close to a cable or sat system, and they have to license use, and (b) that the signal gets delivered to people who are outside of the broadcast area (violating licensing agreements with local affiliate stations).
Further, they are concerned that the DVR feature will be used to deliver that content without commercials, killing their business model (and of course, shooting the golden goose, which is something nobody ever wants to address).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One of the arguments at hand was whether or not what Aereo is doing counts as "retransmission" under those rules, and the judge just ruled that it doesn't. Obviously, it's legal to buy a TV antenna, nail it to the side of your house, and to use it to watch TV. It's also legal to rent that antenna from a company, and have them put it on the side of your house for you. Claiming that Aereo is "retransmitting" the signal is just as facetious as claiming that a network router is "retransmitting" a song when you listen to internet radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So tell me why should cable/sat companies pay for free content just so they can enabled more viewers to watch that content? That same statement has been said in the comments several times but what is never said why it should be that way. And don't use the old fall back argument of "but its the law." Laws can and do change all the time. Instead of repeating the same statement over and over thinking that will change people's mind lets bring out the reasons why? Why was this setup to begin with? What purpose did it serve then? Does it still serve the same purpose? Is it hindering other features or services?
This is just stupid, plain and simple. The content is sent OTA and is designed to be picked up and consumed by as many people as possible for free. This service is only allowing more people to pickup and consume that very same content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe only one giant antenna but...
That 2cm is mine, the next 2cm is yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay broadcasters to retransmit content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the end they are suing because they are losing control of what demographics are watching their content so advertisers might get cautious when buying ad windows for that particular region. The solution is quite simple (and it's probably a better business model too): offer a stream yourself and let the ppl choose where they are (like youtube lets you change your region and even suggests based on your ip). It's another form of revenue over what should be free.
I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]