Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published June 25, 2014 at 7:40 AM | Page modified June 26, 2014 at 3:09 AM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (0)
  • Print

Justices rule for broadcasters in fight with Aereo

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a startup Internet company has to pay broadcasters when it takes television programs from the airwaves and allows subscribers to watch them on smartphones and other portable devices.


Associated Press

Reader Comments
Hide / Show comments
Do broadcasting companies pay advertisers for the rights to air their commercials? No! Then Aereo should not pay... MORE
@Dorboln I don't agree. This was based upon free OTA broadcasts from the sources to begin with, NOT direct feed cable... MORE
If the court rules correctly here, then I think the law is wrong. When signals are propagated through public airwaves,... MORE

advertising

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a startup Internet company has to pay broadcasters when it takes television programs from the airwaves and allows subscribers to watch them on smartphones and other portable devices.

The justices said by a 6-3 vote that Aereo Inc. is violating the broadcasters' copyrights by taking the signals for free. The ruling preserves the ability of the television networks to collect huge fees from cable and satellite systems that transmit their programming.

Had services such as Aereo been allowed to operate without paying for the programming, more people might have ditched their cable services, meaning broadcasters would have been able to charge less for the right to transmit their programs.

Aereo looks a lot like a cable system, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court in rejecting the company's attempts to distinguish itself from cable and satellite TV. "Aereo's system is, for all practical purposes, identical to a cable system," he said.

Aereo is available in New York, Boston, Houston and Atlanta among 11 metropolitan areas and uses thousands of dime-size antennas to capture television signals and transmit them to subscribers who pay as little as $8 a month for the service. Because each subscriber is temporarily assigned a dime-sized, individual antenna, Aereo had made the case that it wasn't like a cable company and wasn't doing anything customers couldn't do on their own at home.

Breyer seemed to suggest the company was too-cute-by-half as he announced the opinion.

He laid out the company's argument that its tiny antennae don't really transmit to the public and then said, "Hmmm," followed by a long pause. Then he added: "Well, we think that this argument makes too fine a point."

Company executives and prominent investor Barry Diller have said their business model would not survive a loss at the Supreme Court.

Aereo chief executive Chet Kanojia called the decision "a massive setback for the American consumer" and said the company would continue to fight, without being specific.

"We've said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today's decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry," Kanojia said in a statement.

Some justices worried during arguments in April that a ruling for the broadcasters could also harm the burgeoning world of cloud computing, which gives users access to a vast online computer network that stores and processes information.

But Breyer said the court did not intend to call cloud computing into question.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia said he shares the majority's feeling that what Aereo is doing "ought not to be allowed." But he said the court has distorted federal copyright law to forbid it.

Congress should decide whether the law "needs an upgrade," Scalia said.

Broadcasters including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS sued Aereo for copyright infringement, saying Aereo should pay for redistributing the programming in the same way cable and satellite systems must or risk high-profile blackouts of channels that anger their subscribers.

The National Association of Broadcasters praised the court for rejecting Aereo's argument that the lawsuit was an attack on innovation. "Broadcasters embrace innovation every day, as evidenced by our leadership in HDTV, social media, mobile apps, user-generated content, along with network TV backed ventures like Hulu," NAB president Gordon Smith said.

The broadcasters and professional sports leagues also feared that nothing in the case would limit Aereo to local service. Major League Baseball and the National Football League have lucrative contracts with the television networks and closely guard the airing of their games. Aereo's model would pose a threat if, say, a consumer in New York could watch NFL games from anywhere through his Aereo subscription.

The federal appeals court in New York ruled that Aereo did not violate the copyrights of broadcasters with its service, but a similar service has been blocked by judges in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said its ruling stemmed from a 2008 decision in which it held that Cablevision Systems Corp. could offer a remote digital video recording service without paying additional licensing fees to broadcasters because each playback transmission was made to a single subscriber using a single unique copy produced by that subscriber. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling.

In the Aereo case, a dissenting judge said his court's decision would eviscerate copyright law.

Judge Denny Chin called Aereo's setup a sham and said the individual antennas are a "Rube Goldberg-like contrivance" -- an overly complicated device that accomplishes a simple task in a confusing way -- that exists for the sole purpose of evading copyright law.

Smaller cable companies, independent broadcasters and consumer groups backed Aereo, warning the court not to try to predict the future of television.

Indeed, Scalia himself noted that the high court came within a vote of declaring videocassette recorders "contraband" when it ruled 5-4 for Sony Corp. in a case over recordings of television programs 30 years ago.

The case is ABC v. Aereo, 13-461.

___

Associated Press writers Nancy Benac and Anick Jesdanun in New York contributed to this report.



Want unlimited access to seattletimes.com? Subscribe now!

Also in Business & Technology

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Meet the winemakers

Meet the winemakers

View video interviews, conducted by The Seattle Times wine writer Andy Perdue, profiling five of our state's top winemakers.

Advertising

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►