Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto

*00008688nab a22003014a 4500
*0019205
*00520201106111817.0
*007tu
*008150115s2014\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035  $a21766
*035  $a(PLib-conv)0000021766
*0410 $aeng
*090  $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aAereo :$bDecision of the Supreme Court 25 June 2014 - Case No. 13-461.
*260  $c2014.
*300  $app. 985-987.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v45 (8)
*500  $aDecisions copyright law.
*520  $aI. JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 1. For a monthly fee, Aereo offers subscribers broadcast television programming over the Internet … Much of this programming is made up of copyrighted works. Aereo neither owns the copyright in those works nor holds a license from the copyright owners to perform those works publicly. It works roughly as follows: First, when a subscriber wants to watch a show that is currently being broadcast, he visits Aereo’s website and selects, from a list of the local programming, the show he wishes to see. Second, one of Aereo’s servers selects an antenna, which it dedicates to the use of that subscriber (and that subscriber alone) for the duration of the selected show. A server then tunes the antenna to the over-the-air broadcast carrying the show. The antenna begins to receive the broadcast, and an Aereo transcoder translates the signals received into data that can be transmitted over the Internet. Third, rather than directly send the data to the subscriber, a server saves the data in a subscriber-specific folder on Aereo’s hard drive. In other words, Aereo’s system creates a subscriber-specific copy – that is, a “personal” copy – of the subscriber’s program of choice. Fourth, once several seconds of programming have been saved, Aereo’s server begins to stream the saved copy of the show to the subscriber over the Internet. … When two subscribers wish to watch the same program, Aereo’s system … streams the show to the subscribers through two separate transmissions – each from the subscriber’s personal copy. 2. This case requires us to answer two questions: First, in operating in the manner described above, does Aereo “perform” at all? And second, if so, does Aereo do so “publicly”? a) The Copyright Act clarifies that to “perform” an audiovisual work means “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.” §101. Aereo, and not just its subscribers, “perform[s]” (or “transmit[s]”). We recognize … one particular difference between Aereo’s system and cable retransmission systems … . These systems transmit constantly; they send continuous programming to each subscriber’s television set. In contrast, Aereo’s system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that she wants to watch a program. Only at that moment, in automatic response to the subscriber’s request, does Aereo’s system activate an antenna and begin to transmit the requested program. This is a critical difference, says the dissent. It means that Aereo’s subscribers, not Aereo, “selec[t] the copyrighted content” that is “perform[ed],” …, and for that reason they, not Aereo, “transmit” the performance. Aereo is thus like “a copy shop that provides its patrons with a library card.” … In our view, however, the dissent’s copy shop argument, in whatever form, makes too much out of too little. Given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to … cable companies …, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here. b) Next, we must consider whether Aereo performs petitioners’ works “publicly”. When an entity communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to multiple people, it transmits a performance to them regardless of the number of discrete communications it makes. The subscribers to whom Aereo transmits television programs constitute “the public.” The Act … suggests that “the public” consists of a large group of people outside of a family and friends. Finally, we note that Aereo’s subscribers may receive the same programs at different times and locations. This fact does not help Aereo, however, for the Transmit Clause expressly provides that an entity may perform publicly “whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance … receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” 3. Aereo and many of its supporting amici argue that to apply the Transmit Clause to Aereo’s conduct will impose copyright liability on other technologies, including new technologies, that Congress could not possibly have wanted to reach. We have not considered whether the public performance right is infringed when the user of a service pays primarily for something other than the transmission of copyrighted works, such as the remote storage of content. We agree with the Solicitor General that “[q]uestions involving cloud computing, [remote storage] DVRs, and other novel issues not before the Court, as to which ‘Congress has not plainly marked [the] course,’ should await a case in which they are squarely presented.” II. JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 1. There are two types of liability for copyright infringement: direct and secondary. As its name suggests, the former applies when an actor personally engages in infringing conduct. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417, 433 (1984). Secondary liability, by contrast, is a means of holding defendants responsible for infringement by third parties, even when the defendants “have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity.” Id., at 435. It applies when a defendant “intentionally induc[es] or encourag[es]” infringing acts by others or profits from such acts “while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit [them].” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). Most suits against equipment manufacturers and service providers involve secondary-liability claims. This suit, or rather the portion of it before us here, is fundamentally different. The Networks claim that Aereo directly infringes their public-performance right. 2. Unlike video-on-demand services, Aereo does not provide a prearranged assortment of movies and television shows. Rather, it assigns each subscriber an antenna that – like a library card – can be used to obtain whatever broadcasts are freely available. Some of those broadcasts are copyrighted; others are in the public domain. The key point is that subscribers call all the shots: Aereo’s automated system does not relay any program, copyrighted or not, until a subscriber selects the program and tells Aereo to relay it. Aereo’s operation of that system is a volitional act and a but-for cause of the resulting performances, but, as in the case of the copy shop, that degree of involvement is not enough for direct liability. In sum, Aereo does not “perform” for the sole and simple reason that it does not make the choice of content. And because Aereo does not perform, it cannot be held directly liable for infringing the Networks’ public-performance right. 3. I share the Court’s evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it. As discussed at the outset, Aereo’s secondary liability for performance infringement is yet to be determined, as is its primary and secondary liability for reproduction infringement. If that does not suffice, then (assuming one shares the majority’s estimation of right and wrong) what we have before us must be considered a “loophole” in the law. It is not the role of this Court to identify and plug loopholes. It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes. Congress can do that, I may add, in a much more targeted, better informed, and less disruptive fashion than the crude “looks-like-cable-TV” solution the Court invents today.
*653  $aVERKKOPALVELUT
*653  $aNETTITELEVISIO
*653  $aINTERNET
*653  $aTELEVISIO-OHJELMAT
*653  $aINTERNET
*653  $asiirtovelvollisuus
*8102 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v8
*852  $hSA-II10$cAEREO
*85640$uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0273-0
*979  $a0000021766
*999  $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^