Copyright Office To Aereo: Quack All You Want, We Don't Think You're A Cable Service
from the quack-quack dept
As we've been discussing, following the Supreme Court's decision that said Aereo was a cable service solely because it looked like one, and therefore had to pay retransmission fees, we warned that this would lead to a legal mess. Some people insisted Aereo could just start paying retransmission fees, but we wondered how that would fit with the ruling in the ivi case, that said internet companies didn't qualify for statutory licenses on retransmission fees, because internet companies are not cable companies.Aereo made a filing with the court that basically said that given the Supreme Court's "look like a duck" test finding it a cable service, it seemed pretty clear that the ivi ruling was overturned, and thus it now wants a statutory license to pay retransmission fees. In addition to telling the court this, Aereo also filed with the Copyright Office its application to be eligible for those fees, leading the Copyright Office to send back a somewhat passive aggressive letter saying that it will "accept" the letter "on a provisional basis" but refuses to "process" it because, in its opinion, the ivi ruling means Aereo cannot be a cable company and nothing about the Supreme Court calling Aereo a cable company changes its opinion of that fact.
In the view of the Copyright Office, internet retransmissions of broadcast television fall outside the scope of the Section 111 license. Significantly, in WPIX, Inc. v. ivi Inc.... the Second Circuit deferred to and agreed with the Office's interpretation of Section 111. As explained in that case, Section 111 is meant to encompass "localized retransmission services" that are "regulated as cable systems by the FCC." ... We do not see anything in the Supreme Court's recent decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo Inc.... that would alter this conclusion.So... despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled, pretty directly, that Aereo matches all the important criteria of a cable company to be covered by the laws that regulate cable company retransmissions, the Copyright Office is going to standby the ivi ruling that internet companies can't be cable companies. As reader Gwiz pointed out last week, it's Schrödinger's CATV. When the Supreme Court looks at it for the purposes of making it infringement, it's a CATV. When the Copyright Office looks at for the sake of actually paying those retrans fees, it's no longer a CATV.
What's perhaps even more troubling here is that there is no reason for the Copyright Office to weigh in here. As is noted in the letter, this issue is currently going to be determined in the courts, and the Copyright Office doesn't need to do anything. But, instead, for no clear reason, it decided to offer its opinion and explain why it won't "process" the letter. Either way, we're left in a situation in which the Supreme Court's ridiculous "quacks like a duck" test is creating confusion.
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: cable service, cable tv, copyright office, retransmission, section 111
Companies: aereo, ivi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Aereo should just say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aereo should just say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aereo should just say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Aereo should just say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aereo should just say...
Isn't there a thing in collections or debt law that says, if a creditor refuses payment of a debt, then either the debt goes away completely, or the collector is barred from further attempts to collect or some such.
Could the same principle be applied here? Could Aereo say that since they made a good-faith effort to comply with the law as it was interpreted to them, then they are no longer bound by that law? Sort of on the lines of 'hey, we tried to pay our bill, but they wouldn't accept our money, so now they can't collect'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aereo should just say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll bet they are actually a platypus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but what does this prove?
... hmmm.. if I can get these on DowJones we can make a fortune betting on the one that goes highest...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but what does this prove?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Miranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, take a page from SpiderOak (spideroak.com) and encrypt everything. Aereo won't know what is being recorded, or what people are watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That sounds like renting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not renting.
I say that should go back into business, but *sell* the antenna and storage space to the viewer, say $99 for 8 hours, and $119 for 20 hours.
That sounds like renting.
It would be a one-time payment for setting up the account. Am I renting my Roku when I buy it? Nope. Free, exclusive, lifetime-access to *my* antenna that *I* now own. It just happens to come with online storage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not renting.
It would be a one-time payment for setting up the account.
I think I know what you mean now - $99 for 8 hours of video storage, not for 8 hours of antenna usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rename Aereo call it Aereoh copyright it as an antenna or pez dispenser re-market it as such . poof back in business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grasping at straws here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, isn't that kind of like Aereo arguing that it's not dead yet?
I think this is just the Supreme Court and the Copyright Office's way of putting Aereo on the cart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah.
They wanted to make sure they couldn't get the statutory license that they need to stay in the market either. It seems pretty clear to me that's what it is. They didn't only want to block Aereo, they want to make an example of Aereo by completely erasing them by force using shady deals.
[ 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 ]
Supreme Court says we're this - copyright office says we're not.
Someone is obviously full of shit. Or perhaps they all are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Citizens of this country have been sold out. Things now get done to us, government has lost interest in doing things for us. Ironically, they also have no interest in leaving us alone either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why should anyone give them a cut? Why should anyone be pushed out of the market when the competition is serving people the incumbents are too apathetic to serve? They complain that companies like Aereo are [moral panic]enriching themselves through the use of the hard work of others.[/moral panic] So fucking what? Everybody that has made any effort to create content has enriched themselves through the use of others' hard work. You can't build a house without lumber and you can't make lumber without trees. But, those trees grew all on their own. They did the work for us and we use them for raw materials. Maybe we should be required to pay the trees a cut of the lumber and construction industry's revenue? We could cut some of them down to make the money we need to pay them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them pul their programming
By broadcasting OTA, they are allowing anyone with a VCR/DVR et. al. to record the broadcast. Betamax anchored that right in concrete.
Congress needs to stop messing with copyright, and just go back to a 14-year term with a 14-year extension. Why should copyright last longer than the lifespan of the majority of the population?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the real world worked like copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the real world worked like copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the real world worked like copyright...
Stars created the heavier elements that make up Hans Bethe. Therefore, Hans could not invent the process by which his most fundamental components were formed.
The same goes for Cavendish. It's not possible to invent what is an inseparable part of the so-called inventor.
That's like saying Newton invented gravity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another clear illustration...
The true solution here is to apply said morals to humans universally, no matter what fancy hat/badge/or title they may have.
The initiation of force is immoral (only self-defense is valid). Respect inherent self-ownership derived property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Comcast ?
The Copyright Office is going to standby the ivi ruling that Internet companies can't be cable companies.
So which one is Comcast???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/212178-copyright-office-ponders-aereo-fallout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not so silly
Aereo appears to be trying to put the cart in front of the horse here. They need to get themselves in a position of being a true cable company, jump through the regulatory hoops, and then they can get to that point where the copyright office needs to handle them as a cable company. Just showing up and saying "yeah, we're a cable company because SCOTUS says we walk like a duck" doesn't cover it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so silly
Ahh, the true spirit of innovation and progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not so silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: not so silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: not so silly
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/cable-system-registration
SCOTUS may say they are operating as a cable company, but until licensed, they are NOT a cable company in fact, just operating as one.
There is a very distinct difference between how you are operating and the concept of your operation being legal, licensed, and above board. Aereo doesn't have anything besides SCOTUS saying they operation meets the technical requirements of a cable operation, so they must operate as one to be legal. That didn't grant them a license to operate.
The difference is huge, and apparently just outside of the grasp of many people here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not so silly
...and while being a smug twat, as always, you miss the actual problems this raises and the points raised as a result - the points being discussed by people who aren't insufferable morons. See if you can work out what those are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not so silly
Where would you fit in, then?
The "actual problems" stem from simply trying to run before they walk. The status of cable company for purposes of copyright (the issue Aereo faced) is regulated by agreeing to pay the appropriate fees as a cable operator. However, that classification is held only for licensed cable operators, which they are not.
So all the other "problems" aren't really problems, they are just a result of failing to touch the correct (and obvious) regulatory bases. The copyright people are very much correct to tell them that they aren't really qualified.
Oh, and keep your ad homs for your self. They aren't needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not so silly
No chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not so silly
Alleging that their critics are engaging in the 'ad hominum' fallacy -- without actually understanding what actually constitutes 'ad hominum'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not so silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so silly
That sounds perfectly reasonable!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not so silly
This ignores the fact that the hoops are being moved around as Aereo jumps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not so silly
That's a pretty basic thing, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact-check anyone?
For the record, I believe that Aereo clearly qualifies as a cable system under the statutory definition at 17 USC 111(f)3. But pretty much everything you say in your article is wrong.
For starters, the Supreme Court made no ruling whatsoever respecting retransmission fees in ABC v. Aereo. Retransmission fees are not copyright royalties/license fees, and they were not at issue in the case. And what Aereo has attempted to pay are not retransmission fees, but copyright royalties/administrative fees pursuant to the statutory license of 17 USC 111(d). (Retransmission fees, on the other hand, are paid directly to broadcasters, after negotiation of retransmission consent.)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court most assuredly did not declare that Aereo "matches all the important criteria of a cable company" such that Aereo qualifies as a cable system for the purposes of section 111. (Some of the justices clearly indicated such during oral argument, and they should have commented on the matter in dicta...but they didn't.)
Finally, the Copyright Office isn't adhering to the Ivi decision. The Ivi decision adhered to the Copyright Office, which has always and consistently (long before Aereo, and Ivi, too, for that matter) imposed additional, extra-statutory criteria on its recognition of "cable systems" under section 111. And it is not the least bit surprising for the Copyright Office to continue to take the view it always has, and handle the matter as it did. That this seems to surprise you, and that you see no clear reason for such, is a product solely of your lack of understanding of the matters on which you are commenting.
The SDNY court hearing the Aereo case on remand ought to conclude that Aereo qualifies as a cable system under 111(f)3, at which time, the Copyright Office ought to accept that ruling (though given what happened at the Supreme Court, there is certainly no assurance they will). Regardless, it is no surprise at all that the Copyright Office decline to recognize Aereo as a cable system on their own, ahead of such a ruling.
Those who are interested in accurate information respecting this matter should see:
Overcoming Ivi to Qualify as a Cable System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact-check anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fact-check anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]