Broadcasters Blast ‘Nonsensical’ Aereo Ruling in Supreme Court Response

TV broadcasters reiterated their position against Aereo in a brief filed Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, labeling a lower-court decision denying their request to shut down the Internet TV startup “nonsensical” and saying Aereo’s legal arguments defied common sense.

The 16-page brief from ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC and others accused Aereo of designing its business “to achieve the for-profit exploitation of the copyrighted works of others on a massive scale.”

The broadcasters were responding to Aereo’s Dec. 12 brief in the case, in which the startup — whose backers include Barry Diller’s IAC — said it would not challenge the plaintiffs’ request for Supreme Court review of the case.

SEE ALSO: Aereo to Broadcasters: Go Ahead, Take the Case to Supreme Court

Aereo, which first launched in New York City in March 2012, offers access to live over-the-air TV signals and recorded programming to subscribers on a range of devices. Aereo argues that the service is a private performance, allowable under fair-use provisions of the Copyright Act, because the tiny antennas it uses are allocated to specific users.

Broadcasters sued Aereo last year, but the Second Circuit denied their request for an injunction to force Aereo to stop offering the service. The startup has successfully defended itself so far by relying on a 2008 Second Circuit ruling that found Cablevision Systems’ remote-storage DVR (RS-DVR) service did not violate copyright laws.

In October, the broadcast networks and other stations petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing Aereo undercuts their ability to collect retransmission fees from cable and satellite TV providers.

In its Supreme Court filing, Aereo said that the “core issue in this case is whether a consumer can access and control an individual, remotely located antenna and digital video recorder, owned by a third party, to record and view local, over-the-air broadcast television programming without subjecting the third party to liability for infringing copyright owners’ exclusive right to perform works ‘publicly.’ It is well settled that a consumer can deploy such equipment at home without infringing copyright.”

Broadcasters, in their response, accused Aereo of bending over backward to portray itself — inaccurately, they contend — as merely a provider of technology. “Make no mistake about it,” they said in the brief. “Aereo is not a hardware supplier. It offers a subscription service.”

The broadcasters said the Second Circuit’s decision on Aereo “threatens to have a distorting — and quite likely irreversible — effect on the broadcast television industry” unless the Supreme Court intervenes. They urged the high court to reject the lower court’s “nonsensical conclusion” that the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause does not apply to Aereo.

“Aereo’s response brief gets a great deal wrong, but it gets one important thing right: This exceptionally important case warrants this Court’s immediate review,” the broadcasters said in the brief.

SEE ALSO: Cablevision: Aereo Is Illegal, But Broadcasters Are Wrong in Their Attack on Startup

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 5

Leave a Reply

5 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Well as a cable cutter, if they want to be able to sell my eyeballs to the advertisers they need aereos. And to any one that woudl say put up an annteena, I live in an apartment and not allowed to put one up. And $80 a month for cable, well not going to happen.

  2. Insulting their fellow judges by saying their ruling was nonsense does not see like the best way to curry favor with the court.

  3. FrankM says:

    Broadcasters are given the use of airwaves, they fail to deliver a usable signal to the area they claim to serve, then they get upset that another company is able to legally fill that gap? That’s crap!

    Either fix your signal so that aereo has no viable business and/or open up your “viewing apps” to allow for users to be eligible based on IP address rather than having a pay-tv subscription.

  4. shwru980r says:

    A consumer can already re transmit television content over the internet to a remote location using a slingbox or a Tivo. The only difference is the consumer owns the hardware and the antenna. How can this process suddenly become illegal because the consumer rents the hardware and antenna.

  5. Joe Smart says:

    What’s non-nonsensical is idea that cable subscribers should be charged for over the air broadcast channels that would be completely free if they weren’t paying for a cable subscription. The FCC and lawmakers never, ever should have allowed the charging of retransmission fees in the first place. If a station is free with an antenna then it should be free over cable, satellite, the Internet or any other medium there is as long as they rebroadcast that signal as is, without removing the commercials. It’s time to put an end to this disgusting, greedy practice.

More Biz News from Variety

Loading