Following loss before the Supreme Court, Aereo "astonishes" broadcasters with new legal strategy

by DLA Piper

Shortly after its highly publicized loss before the US Supreme Court, which appeared to doom its over-the-air television Internet streaming business, New York-based Aereo has asserted in federal district court that it is entitled to a compulsory license to carry over-the-air broadcasts under § 111 of the Copyright Act.  Such a license, which is available to cable systems, could be a complete defense to copyright infringement claims by broadcasters.  Aereo bases its claim on the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Aereo service is “highly similar” to that of a cable system. 

The Copyright Office has since rejected Aereo’s theory, reaffirming its view that § 111 does not apply to Internet retransmission services.  Nonetheless, Aereo’s strategy presents interesting new issues, which may substantially prolong its litigation, and which may mean that the case ultimately returns to the Supreme Court.

Once the Supreme Court granted the broadcasters’ petition for certiorari, the New York federal district court presiding over ABC, Inc. et al v. Aereo, Inc., 12-cv-1540-AJN-HBP, stayed all proceedings until the Supreme Court decided the appeal.  It also ordered that after the Supreme Court ruled, the parties must submit a joint letter stating their position on whether the stay should be lifted, and if so, how discovery should proceed.

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that Aereo directly infringed broadcasters’ copyrights in on-air programming by transmitting the programs to its Internet subscribers.  The Court noted that Congress, in the Copyright Act, legislatively overruled two prior Court decisions, Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390 (1968) and Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U. S. 394 (1974), and established that cable systems retransmitting over-the-air broadcasts without a license from the broadcaster infringed the public performance right included within copyright.  It found that the Aereo system functioned similarly to a cable television (or CATV) system, and was therefore subject to the same prohibition on unauthorized retransmission.  See our previous alert here.

The parties have now filed their joint letter with the district court, stating how each of them believe the case should proceed.  The broadcasters plan to submit a proposed order, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, that permanently enjoins Aereo from infringing their public performance rights.  They say that any additional proceedings, depends upon what Aereo plans to do with its service.

Aereo, however, has chosen an entirely new tack.  After claiming throughout the litigation that its service was not at all like a cable television system, Aereo has reversed course.  It now claims that, like cable systems, Aereo is entitled to a compulsory license to retransmit over-the-air broadcasts under Copyright Act § 111, because the Supreme Court held that the Aereo service is highly similar to cable systems.  With such a license, Aereo would no longer infringe broadcasters’ copyrights and the service could not be enjoined.

The broadcasters responded  that Aereo’s new position is “astonishing…given its prior statements to this Court and the Supreme Court.”  For example, the broadcasters note, Aereo distinguished itself from a cable system under § 111 in its briefing to the district court, and again at oral argument before the Supreme Court.  Aereo, however, says that it has always “been careful to follow the law”—first under the Second Circuit precedent (i.e., Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (Cablevision) and WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012) (ivi)).  In ivi, the Second Circuit held that a service that retransmits television programming live over the Internet, like Aereo, is not eligible for § 111’s compulsory license.  It based this conclusion on the fact that neither Congress, nor the Copyright Office, has ever expressly permitted § 111’s definition of “cable system” to cover Internet retransmission services.  Aereo asserts that the Supreme Court has announced a “new and different rule governing Aereo’s operations,” which effectively overrules ivi.  Aereo has asked the district court to continue the stay of discovery and rule on its entitlement to a § 111 license immediately.

One week after the parties submitted their joint letter to the district court, the Copyright Office provisionally accepted Aereo’s request to obtain a § 111 compulsory license and filing of statements of account forms.  However, this is not necessarily good news for Aereo.  The Copyright Office rejected Aereo’s legal theory that the Supreme Court’s decision overrules ivi, and reaffirmed its long-held position that § 111’s definition of “cable system” does not cover Internet retransmission services.  The Copyright Office did state that it may wait to see the outcome of the court case before deciding whether to reject Aereo’s filings altogether.

So, now what?  The first problem is procedural.  The broadcasters argue that the district court cannot consider the issue because Aereo did not plead § 111 as an affirmative defense in its Answer.  Thus, the issue will be whether Aereo can amend its answer and that, in turn, may require the district court to determine whether the license defense is viable, or “futile,” because the defense has no legal basis, particularly in view of the Copyright Office’s position.

Assuming that the district court reaches the viability of the defense, Aereo’s eligibility for a § 111 license is far from clear.  § 111 permits a “cable system” to retransmit a broadcast, pursuant to a statutory license, where the cable system’s retransmission is permissible under the FCC’s rules and regulations.  Ivi interpreted this language as too narrow to encompass systems similar to Aereo’s.  The district court will need to decide whether the Supreme Court’s statement that “Aereo’s activities are substantially similar to those of the [cable systems] that Congress amended the Act to reach” is enough to bring Aereo within the ambit of § 111.

The court may be influenced by the Copyright Office’s rejection of Aereo’s argument, but it is not necessarily bound by it.   There remains another issue: were the court to hold that Aereo meets § 111’s definition of “cable system,” it will have to deal with an even thornier issue: is transmission by Aereo permissible under the FCC’s rules and regulations?

For years, the FCC has grappled with how to interpret the term “multichannel video programming distributor” (“MVPD”), as defined in the Communications Act of 1934, (47 U.S.C. § 522(13)), in light of Internet retransmission services, like Aereo, and other Internet video streaming services.  An MVPD, as defined by the Communications Act, is subject to both benefits and legal obligations under the Act and FCC regulations.  The regulatory benefits to an MVPD include the right to seek relief under the retransmission consent rules, which require broadcast stations to consent to an MVPD’s carriage of its signal, and the former program access rules, which the FCC declined to extend beyond 2012, but which required vertically integrated cable companies (i.e., entities that own both content and a delivery platform) to provide competitors access to their programming content.  

On the other hand, MVPD’s are obligated to negotiate in good faith with broadcasters for retransmission consent, among several other requirements.  In 2010, Sky Angel, an Internet protocol television (“IPTV”) service, filed a program access complaint with the FCC against a broadcaster which had terminated Sky Angel’s affiliation agreement.  At issue there is whether Sky Angel could show that an IPTV service meets the definition of MVPD such that it is entitled to seek relief under the FCC’s program access rules.  In 2012, the FCC sought public comment on the issue.  But the FCC has yet to rule and the issue remains open today.  How will the FCC’s non-action in this area affect the district court’s resolution of Aereo’s argument?  Will the FCC, as the Copyright Office did, express its view on the issue?  Or will that court attempt to rule on the issue before the FCC does?  These questions do not have easy answers.  

In addition to these points, Aereo also argues that, if it is not eligible for a § 111 license, any injunction on its services should prohibit only “simultaneous or near-simultaneous streaming,” because such streaming was the only issue before the Supreme Court.  This would leave Aereo free to transmit “non-simultaneous playback from copies created by customers.” 

It is difficult to predict what delay between broadcast and streaming would make the latter “non-simultaneous,” and whether the district court will read the Supreme Court’s decision as narrowly as Aereo does. 

In short, we have not heard the last from Aereo.  As we have said before during this saga, stay tuned.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© DLA Piper | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

DLA Piper

DLA Piper on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.