Aereo v Aereokiller: New York and California district courts disagree on what constitutes a public performance under the Copyright Act
Technology continues to evolve at an ever-increasing pace, often leaving in its wake lawsuits that require the application of laws enacted before the technological advancements occurred. Perhaps it is not too surprising, then, that in struggling to apply ‘old laws’ to ‘new technologies’, courts sometimes reach contrary conclusions.
A recent example of this phenomenon involves two companies that provided their subscribers with access to copyrighted content over the internet using virtually identical technologies. Although neither service was licensed by the copyright owners, one service was preliminarily enjoined, but the other was not as the courts grappled with the issue of what constitutes a public performance under the Copyright Act.
In American Broadcasting Companies, Inc v Aereo, Inc, 874 F.Supp.2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), copyright owners of broadcast television programming sought to preliminarily enjoin a service that allowed defendant Aereo’s subscribers to contemporaneously view those same programs over the internet. One of the liability theories asserted by the plaintiffs was that Aereo’s retransmissions of the broadcasts constituted ‘public performances’ of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion, however, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits based on the Second Circuit’s prior construction of the Copyright Act’s ‘transmit clause’ in Cartoon Network LP v CSC Holdings, Inc, 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (‘Cablevision’)…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
Judgments handed down from the People’s Court all over the country will be available online from 1 January 2014, as part of the initiative by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) to increase judicial transparency.
An issue that comes up fairly regularly in redundancy selection is whether employers must consider all employees in similar roles or whether they can opt for a ‘pool of one’.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The Lawyer’s latest Top 50 litigation firms list shows that business for dispute specialists is roaring along while new in-depth detail reveals the winning strategies
The Russian legal market faces a new era as the government opens the door to greater business transparency, but not everything is open to scrutiny