WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
712 F.3d 676
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Aereo provides internet streaming of broadcast TV to NYC-area subscribers for a monthly fee without licenses.
- Two groups of plaintiffs allege copyright infringement, including public performance, reproduction, and contributory infringement.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction, citing Cablevision to find no likelihood of success on the merits.
- Aereo’s system uses thousands of antennas and user-specific copies to stream or record programs; copies are created per user and are not shared across users.
- Cablevision concerned an RS-DVR system; this court held such private copies and transmissions were not public performances, guiding the district court here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aereo’s transmissions infringe the public performance right under the Transmit Clause | Plaintiffs contend transmissions are public performances like cable retransmission | Aereo argues transmissions are private, not to the public, due to user-specific copies | Not a public performance; transmissions to individual users from unique copies are non-public |
| Whether Cablevision controls the Transmit Clause analysis for Aereo | Cablevision dictates that each transmission is to the public | Cablevision is distinguishable; Aereo’s setup differs materially | Cablevision guides but does not require automatic result; the court applied its framework to Aereo |
| Whether legislative history supports treating Aereo as a public performance | Congress intended to cover new technologies; broadcasts retransmitted publicly | Legislative history expresses private/public distinction; Cablevision controls | Legislative history supports public-performances view; but doctrine follows Cablevision framework in this case |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on the other preliminary injunction factors | Irreparable harm and balance of hardships favor plaintiffs | Aereo would suffer substantial hardship; public interest not disserved | No abuse of discretion; balance and irreparable harm do not tip decisively in plaintiffs’ favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (Transmit Clause interpretation; private copies not public performance; audience of each transmission matters)
- Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 874 F.Supp.2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (District court denial of injunction; relied on Cablevision)
- Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1974) (Transmit Clause context; historical CATV decisions)
- Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1968) (Transmit Clause history; CATV reasoning pre-1976 Act)
- 37 U.S.C. 106; 17 U.S.C. 101, (statutes) (—) (Public performance rights and definition of 'publicly' and 'transmit')