Business

Justices rule for broadcasters in fight with Aereo

Posted June 25

Aereo's mini-antenna

— The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a startup Internet company has to pay broadcasters when it takes television programs from the airwaves and allows subscribers to watch them on smartphones and other portable devices.

The justices said by a 6-3 vote that Aereo Inc. is violating the broadcasters' copyrights by taking the signals for free. The ruling preserves the ability of the television networks to collect huge fees from cable and satellite systems that transmit their programming.

The broadcasters told the court, and the majority of the justices agreed, that Aereo's "competitors pay for the rights to retransmit 'live TV' to the public — as they must to avoid liability for copyright infringement — while Aereo does not."

Aereo uses thousands of dime-size antennas to capture television signals and transmit them to subscribers who pay as little as $8 a month for the service.

It is available in New York, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Baltimore, Cincinnati, San Antonio and Austin. The company has said it plans to expand to Raleigh-Durham soon.

Some justices worried during arguments in April that a ruling for the broadcasters could also harm the burgeoning world of cloud computing, which gives users access to a vast online computer network that stores and processes information.

But Justice Stephen Breyer in his majority opinion that the court did not intend to call cloud computing into question.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Broadcasters including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS sued Aereo for copyright infringement, saying Aereo should pay for redistributing the programming the same way cable and satellite systems must or risk high-profile blackouts of channels that anger their subscribers.

The U.S. networks increasingly are reliant on these retransmission fees, estimated at $3.3 billion last year and going up to more than $7 billion by 2018, according to research by SNL Kagan, which analyzes media and communications trends.  

When an Aereo subscriber wants to watch a show live or record it, the company temporarily assigns him an antenna and transmits the program over the Internet to the subscriber's laptop, tablet, smartphone or other device.

The antenna is only used by one subscriber at a time, and Aereo says that's much like the situation at home, where a viewer uses a personal antenna to watch over-the-air broadcasts for free.

"Aereo is in some ways novel, but it is also among a host of technologies that uses the Internet to offer consumers the ability to do what they always have more cheaply and conveniently," the Dish Network and Echostar Technologies said in a supporting legal brief filed in the Supreme Court.

But the broadcasters and their backers argued that Aereo's competitive advantage lies not in its product, but in avoiding paying for it. The Court likened Aereo more closely to a cable provider than to an equipment provider. "Behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems," Breyer wrote.

11 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • darbyohara Jun 26, 10:16 a.m.

    This is surprising... since courts ruled many decades ago airwaves were free... and that anyone... View More

    — Posted by mep

    You do know Bush has planted right-wing majority on this supreme court.. look for MANY bad things to happen with Roberts and Alito! the rest of them are just goats grazing in the pasture!

  • Mods Hate Me Jun 25, 2:59 p.m.

    Major networks are doing anything they can to try to stay in business. Luckily, companies like netflix, youtube and hulu will be their demise.

  • pause to consider Jun 25, 1:48 p.m.

    This is similar to the napster debate: Redistribution of product for a fee. Is Aereo was a truly free app, then it may have a leg to stand on, but all networks have specific copyrights that protect against redistribution, whether for money or not. This outcome makes sense to me. As a musician, I don't like the 'free' music download services either.

  • 68_dodge_polara Jun 25, 1:38 p.m.

    I can't believe some one would make up such a business model and think it could some how be legal.

  • winemaker81 Jun 25, 12:18 p.m.

    This is surprising... since courts ruled many decades ago airwaves were free... and that anyone... View More

    — Posted by mep

    I suspect the problem is not re-distributing, it's doing it for a fee. Anyone is free to use the signals for their personal purposes, but not to resell it.

  • westernwake1 Jun 25, 11:24 a.m.

    An absurd decision IMO

  • Save It Jun 25, 11:14 a.m.

    This is a story about stale, old media companies struggling for relevance.

  • mep Jun 25, 11:13 a.m.

    This is surprising... since courts ruled many decades ago airwaves were free... and that anyone that could receive them could enjoy them. Guess redistributing them is the crime.
    Oh well.....

  • NC_interest Jun 25, 11:05 a.m.

    This is like winning a horse and buggy monopoly. The technology is all pretty much obsolete with You Tube, Netflix and the internet already dominating the choices. The major broadcasters are only delaying their demise.

  • WhoMe44a Jun 25, 11:02 a.m.

    Another blow to free enterprise! To be such a progressive country these days we sure cant advance anything that costs someone else a dollar! Makes me sick to see existing technology sit on the shelf cause it might encourage competition and advancement!

More...