property law

April 23,
Broadcas
of stream
computin

Case Bac

In Boston
its custom
devices v
service ($
does not
signals A

Notably,
and a dig
and legal
provides

In additio
each of w
when a u
antenna i
assigned,
DVR tha
television

In March
alleging c
protectio
Aereo inf
constitute
defense,
an indivi
the cloud

U.S. Sup

, 2014 – Yes

sting Compa

ming video co

ng technolog

ckground

n, New York

mers to recei

via the Intern

$8 or $12 pe

pay a retran

Aereo capture

Aereo prese

gital video re

lly use in the

its users wit

on, Aereo ha

which is abou

user requests

is individual

, allowing A

at each of its

n.

h 2012, sever

copyright in

n of the righ

fringes this r

es an unauth

Aereo essen

dual antenna

d.

Intel

preme Co

sterday, the U

anies, et al. v

ontent over t

gies.

k and other s

ive and view

net. Aereo ch

er month dep

nsmission fee

es to provide

ents itself as

ecorder (DVR

eir own hom

th access to t

as designed i

ut the size of

to view a pa

lly recorded

Aereo to furth

users could

ral broadcas

nfringement.

ht of public p

right becaus

horized publi

ntially argues

a, receiver an

lectual

urt Hears

By

U.S. Suprem

v. Aereo. Th

the Internet,

select cities w

w broadcast t

harges its us

pending on th

e or provide

e its service.

an equipme

R) to each o

me to view an

their antenna

its signal rec

f a dime and

articular bro

for only the

her analogize

legally use i

ters, includin

In particular

performance

e its retransm

ic performan

s that it is m

nd DVR —

Prope

s Oral Arg

Rajit Kapur

me Court hea

e case prese

but the rulin

where Aereo

television co

sers a relative

he city), but

any other co

ent rental com

of its users —

nd record bro

a and DVR o

ception syste

d can be dyn

oadcast chann

one specific

e its system

in their own

ng ABC, CB

r, at issue in

e of a copyrig

mission of th

nce of the co

erely renting

and simply p

erty Ale

uments in

ard oral argum

ents issues of

ng could hav

o has launch

ontent on the

ely small mo

t unlike cable

ompensation

mpany that m

— something

oadcast telev

over the Inte

ems to includ

amically ass

nel. The vid

c user to whi

to the rabbit

n home to vie

BS, NBC Un

n this case is

ghted work.

heir video br

opyrighted v

g equipment

providing ac

ert:

n ABC v. A

ments in Am

f copyright l

ve a broader

hed its servic

eir computer

onthly fee fo

e and satellit

n to the broad

merely provi

g that its user

vision — exc

ernet.

de arrays of

signed to an

deo signal rec

ich the anten

t ears antenn

ew and recor

niversal and

the copyrigh

The broadca

roadcasts to

ideo broadca

t to its users

ccess to this

Aereo

merican

law in the co

impact on c

ce, Aereo ena

s or mobile

or access to i

te providers,

dcasters who

ides an anten

rs could purc

cept that Aer

tiny antenna

individual u

ceived by ea

nna has been

na and perso

rd broadcast

Fox, sued A

ht laws’

asters argue

Aereo users

asts. In its

— in the for

equipment v

ontext

cloud

ables

its

,

ose

nna

chase

reo

as,

user

ach

n

nal

t

Aereo,

that

s

rm of

via