American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
874 F. Supp. 2d 373
| S.D.N.Y. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs (ABC, WNET, and related entities) sue Aereo seeking a preliminary injunction to stop live viewing of their broadcast programming over the internet.
- Aereo contends Cablevision (Second Circuit) controls and forecloses liability under the transmit clause of the Copyright Act.
- The court conducted expedited discovery and a two-day evidentiary hearing to decide the injunction on the live viewing aspects of Aereo’s service.
- The court finds Aereo’s antennas operate independently, with each antenna receiving separate broadcast signals and producing unique copies for individual users.
- The central issue is whether Aereo’s system makes a public transmission to the public, or whether the copies and their downstream transmissions are nonpublic under Cablevision.
- The court ultimately denies the preliminary injunction, concluding plaintiffs are unlikely to prove a public-performance violation and that Cablevision controls the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public performance under the transmit clause | Cablevision-like: Aereo transmits to the public via copies, not the master signal. | Cablevision controls; copies for each user are unique and transmissions are not to the public. | Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail; Cablevision controls |
| Do Aereo's antennas function independently | Antennas operate collectively via a shared substructure; may produce a public transmission. | Antennas function independently; each user gets a separate transmission. | Antennas function independently |
| Role of time-shifting in determining public performance | Time-shifting distinguishes nonpublic copies; live viewing is distinct from time-shifted copies. | Cablevision did not rely on time-shifting; downstream copies control public-performances. | Cablevision controls; time-shifting not dispositive |
| Scope of Cablevision applicability | Distinctions from Cablevision allow departure from its holding. | Court bound to Cablevision’s reasoning and cannot distinguish on these facts. | Cablevision controls; not likely to be public performance |
| Irreparable harm as a basis for injunction | Aereo will irreparably harm advertising, licensing, and future ventures in mobile viewing. | Harms are speculative and delay undermines irreparable-harm claim; balance of equities not favoring injunction. | Irreparable harms shown but not decisive; injunction denied on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Cable News Network, Inc. v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (transmit clause; unique copies control whether transmission is public)
- NFL v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2000) (public-performance includes steps in the process; downstream analysis)
- American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers v. Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 627 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (downstream transmissions and control of performances matter)
- WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (streaming as public performance considerations in context)
- WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (public-performance considerations in internet streaming)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (time-shifting descriptions; copyright scope guidance)