直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Supreme Court to Decide Scope of Broadcasters’ ‘Public Performance’ Right

February 24, 2014

Authored and Edited by Brian R. Westley

In a case that could radically transform the broadcast television industry, the Supreme Court will soon address whether a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television show when it retransmits individual copies of that show to thousands of its subscribers.

The Court recently granted certiorari in ABC, Inc. et al. v. Aereo, Inc. The case pits long-time broadcasters ABC, NBC, CBS and others against upstart Aereo, a company that captures over-the-air broadcasts and then retransmits unique copies to subscribers via individual dime-sized antennas. Aereo subscribers, who request what they want to watch, can view the shows over the Internet in near real-time or later. If the Supreme Court holds that Aereo’s technology is not a violation of the Copyright Act, it will clear the way for other technologies that take advantage of over-the-air broadcasts without paying copyright royalties.

Aereo’s system was designed to comply with the Second Circuit’s Cablevision decision (Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008)). In Cablevision, a cable provider allowed its subscribers to access a “remote DVR” that, when a subscriber pressed “record” on its remote, saved a stream of the channel to a hard drive and allowed the subscriber to access it. Because only the subscriber who requested the DVR to record the program could access it, the Second Circuit held that Cablevision’s system did not violate the copyright owner’s exclusive right to perform the copyrighted work publicly.

Citing Cablevision, the Second Circuit in WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676 (2nd Cir. 2013) affirmed a denial of a preliminary injunction against Aereo. The Court held that, “just as in Cablevision, the potential audience of each Aereo transmission is the single user who requested that a program be recorded.” The dissent found that Aereo’s technology was a “sham” with the sole purpose of circumventing the Copyright Act, observing that under Aereo’s theory, “it may retransmit, for example, the Super Bowl ‘live’ to 50,000 subscribers and yet, because each subscriber has an individual antenna and a ‘unique recorded cop[y]’ of the broadcast, these are ‘private’ performances.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 10, 2014.

Tags

public performance

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP