Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Grants <i>Cert</i> in <i>Aereo</i> Case
On Jan. 10, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the major broadcast networks, as well as other copyright holders, requesting that it overturn a Second Circuit decision regarding whether Aereo Inc., which “streams” broadcast television over the internet to subscribers without paying any retransmission fees, infringes those broadcasters' copyrights. ABC v. Aereo, Inc., 187 L. Ed. 2d 702 (U.S. 2014). [Editor's Note: The SCOTUS blog has a page with the latest developments on the case, at http://bit.ly/1k7h2bo.] Along with the Supreme Court's decisions in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), Aereo may turn out to be one of the most important copyright decisions since enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976, with potential wide-ranging ramifications for the television industry and the fast-growing cloud computing industry.
What Aereo Does
Aereo provides a cloud-based service that enables its subscribers to watch or record, via broadband Internet access, television broadcast programming that would otherwise be available over-the-air using an antenna. For example, Aereo offers New York City residents access to the more than two dozen digital broadcast channels available in New York City with an antenna, including each of the major networks, and various independent networks.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.