Tech startup Aereo continued to disrupt the market this week when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. case. The case has garnered lots of attention in the technology community due to the implications it may have on Cloud services. Essentially, Aereo provides an electronic antenna that picks up and broadcasts existing signals with the added bonus of being a virtual recorder and storage locker.  Aereo’s creation is brilliant, but as seems to be the case with many such tech developments, it may have outpaced current laws and policy.

Broadcasting companies believe copyrighted content is illegally transmitted through the internet from Aereo to Aereo’s paying subscribers. Companies such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS allege that the company is publicly performing by transmitting content without proper licensing and payment of royalty fees — a violation of intellectual property laws.

Broadcast Companies are using the 1976 Copyright Act definition of transmission to prove that Aereo’s transmission of content is a public performance, while Aereo’s customers are private performers. This distinction is important because private performances are exempt from obtaining licenses and paying fees for copyrighted content, while public performances are not.  Paul Clement, the attorney working on behalf of the broadcast company petitioners, recognizes that a person or company that sells traditional antennas would not be involved in a public performance; however, he asserts that Aereo’s use of ongoing services, even if considered a rented service, exploits the use of copyrighted works and therefore represents a public performance and a violation of the Copyright Act.

In response to questions from Justices Alito and Kennedy about the difference between Aereo’s services and the DVR service provided by companies like CableVision, Clement responded that unlike Aereo, CableVision acquired licenses to receive their content in the first place. Because CableVision’s customers are recording and storing content for private use that the company was given permission to transmit, CableVision’s DVR service was rightfully excluded from obtaining a reproduction license. Aereo did not obtained permission to access the content that they allow their customers to stream, record, and store.

The use of Aereo allows its customers to only view local over-the-air broadcasts, the signals for which are free to the public, which makes the sale and private use of antennas to disseminate these broadcasts a lawful act. Aereo asserts that they are not publicly performing because they are equipment providers, no different than a company that sells antennas. This equipment provides access to free, public content, which is different from providing content in the first place. Aereo attorney David Frederick cited Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios as precedent for the lawful use of Aereo’s DVR service. The Sony decision held that consumers have the right to record local over-the-air broadcasts for private use. Since Aereo is renting equipment that provides access to free local content, the company argues that they’re not in violation of the Copyright Act.

What is bothersome to Aereo, and potentially problematic to Cloud service, is the interpretation of the Copyright Act’s Transmission Clause. Aereo believes that the petitioners’ interpretation qualifies any device or process disseminating works to the public, as a public performance, thereby requiring licenses and payment of royalties, which could be detrimental to cloud computing. Clement; however, was clear on the subject of cloud computing and doesn’t believe a decision in his clients’ favor should threaten that technology’s future.

Whether anyone believes that a decision against Aereo should threaten Cloud’s future or not is irrelevant — the more important question is, could it be applied when considering cloud computing? I’m not sure how the Supreme Court will rule, but I do believe this decision will affect cloud computing no matter the outcome.

Aereo is the twenty-first century solution to the discontinued use of antennas and VCRs. If the Supreme Court rules in its favor, Aereo could build on its existing technology and become an entity more comparable to a cable company, at which time they should be responsible for proper licensing and adherence to copyright laws. Technology is constantly changing and challenging older, more established technologies and industries — this is exactly what drives continued innovation. A ruling against Aereo would stifle this innovative growth.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aereo Technology Drives Innovation, But How Will SCOTUS Rule? appeared first on Law Street.

Internet legalities, security, and commerce are confusing. There a lot of gray areas when it comes to what is legal but also, the consequences for internet crimes are clearly lacking as well. If there is no fear of the law, what incentive is there for people to abide by the law? One ubiquitous internet crime is piracy, or the act of obtaining copy written content without paying for it. This type of crime is conducted by a variety of methods; among them are peer to peer downloading and streaming.

Let’s take a look at the history…

Obtaining content online first commenced with downloading information from a single location. Downloading is the process of copying data, usually an entire file from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one’s own computer. During a direct download, you are only downloading the file(s) from an individual server unlike a torrent.

Today, torrenting is much more popular, where users download crowd sourced content. Torrenting is the act of downloading files from a large network in which all of the users are sharing the same file. A torrent allows you to download the file from multiple users, with the capability to also share some of it back. Both the act of downloading and torrenting content violates the Copyright Act of 1976.

While it is evident that downloading/ torrenting is an issue looking at Voltage Pictures Case, the new issue in piracy is streaming. Streaming is simply the method of relaying the data over a computer network as a steady continuous stream, allowing playback to proceed while subsequent data is being receive

It is significantly more difficult to file lawsuits against perpetrators who are streaming; they are not hosting or sharing the file. Likewise, obtaining IP addresses and personal info of people who stream videos is complicated. Torrents are much easier to track due to file sharing during downloading. This in itself, make torrents easier cases to prosecute. For the time being, companies mainly target the low hanging fruit- people who download from torrents.

Most notably, the latest streaming issue is with Aereo. Currently, Aereo batting television providers  in the Supreme Court. They created an antenna that could receive “free” television, and then charged others to view it using the cable from their antenna.

So is streaming content safe and legal?  

Streaming is a slippery slope for prosecutors, as there are no definitive answers to this question. The answer depends on many variables including the site and file type. Due to the lack of any conclusive rulings, the legality of streaming is in a state of limbo. In an attempt to clear the air, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when a reproduction manifests itself in a fleeting manner that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated. Though the law is convoluted, it is useful to note that owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it’s costly and difficult to track these users down.

Even if the ruling comes down as piracy, I would compare this activity to jaywalking. Yes, it is considered illegal. Yes, you should not do it. But the fact of the matter is everyone does it.

[Mother Jones] [Aereo]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Streaming become Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.