Aereo and FilmOn X: Internet Television Streaming and Copyright Law (English Edition) [Kindle-editie] beoordelingen het boek quotes

Aereo and FilmOn X stream television programming over the Internet for a monthly subscription fee. Aereo and FilmOn’s technology permits subscribers to watch both live broadcast television in addition to already-aired programming. Their use of this development in technology has triggered multiple lawsuits from broadcasting companies alleging copyright violations. These cases reveal not only multiple interpretations of copyright law and its application to new and developing technologies but also a possible “loophole” in the law, which some have accused Aereo and FilmOn of exploiting. The Copyright Act of 1976 provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to control how certain creative content is publicly performed. Of particular interest to courts in recent cases against Aereo and FilmOn was the meaning of the Copyright Act’s “transmit clause” that determines whether a performance is private or public and within the scope of the public performance right. Specifically, the courts have been divided as to what constitutes a “performance to members of the public” for the purposes of the transmit clause. During the past two years, groups of broadcasters have filed lawsuits against Aereo and FilmOn alleging that the retransmissions of their programs by these companies have violated their right of public performance. While both FilmOn and Aereo use similar technology, the courts have disagreed about whether this technology infringes upon the copyright holder’s right of public performance. In 2013, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in WNET v. Aereo affirmed the lower court decision ruling that the transmissions by Aereo did not infringe the plaintiffs’ public performance right. However, district courts in the District of Columbia (Fox Television Stations v. FilmOn X) and California (Fox Television Stations v. BarryDriller Content Systems) have held that FilmOn’s retransmissions did violate the right of public performance. The Second Circuit held that Aereo’s transmission of broadcast programs is not a public performance because Aereo is transmitting a copy of the program made by Aereo available not to the public at large but only to a specific subscriber. However, the D.C. and California district courts have disagreed with this interpretation. These courts have held that the retransmission by FilmOn of the broadcasters’ copyrighted material is a public performance and therefore violates the broadcasters’ copyright. For the D.C. and California district courts, the one-copy-per- subscriber technology of FilmOn does not exclude the company from the public performance right when the service is transmitting the same underlying program to various subscribers. These decisions, however, do not mark the end of litigation over these issues. The parties have filed appeals in the circuit courts and a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Additionally, two bills in the 113th Congress address issues related to Internet television streaming. These bills, the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013 (S. 912) and the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act (S. 1680), would enhance consumer choice regarding online television programming, a service marketed by both Aereo and FilmOn.