The case under consideration involves such issue as copyright. The Defendant is Aereo, Inc., and the Plaintiffs are American Broadcasting Companies Inc., Disney Enterprises Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc., CBS Studios Inc., NBCUniversal Media LLC, NBS Studios LLC, Universal Network Television LLC, Telemundo Network Group LLC, WNJU-TV Broadcasting LLC (ABC, Inc. et al. & Aereo, Inc., 2012).
The defendant provides services which enable its customers to watch programs which are broadcasted, record programs which will be broadcasted and view the programs (both currently broadcasted and those recorded) via computers and other electronic devices including mobile phones. It is necessary to add that the company operates in New York City only transmitting local channels (ABC, Inc. et al. & Aereo, Inc., 2012).
The plaintiffs argue that such services violate their copyright which “arises out of AERO’s unauthorized retransmission of plaintiffs’ over-the-air television broadcast programming to the public for a fee” (ABC, Inc. et al. & Aereo, Inc., 2012, p. 1). The plaintiffs also claim the defendant provides services that violate the 1976 Copyright Act.
The defendant claims that the company operates within the Copyright Act and refers to other companies which are offering similar services and it is noted that the services involve new technology which did not exist when the Copyright law was enacted (ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 2013). Therefore, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant violates the law by failing to pay fully within the copyright law whereas the defendant states that the company operates within all the necessary legal norms.
The court decides to deny the motion and states that Aereo operates within the law and provides services (with the use of innovative technologies similar to RS-DVR system) which other companies offer (for example, Cartoon Network) and which are validated by the Second Circuit (American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 2014). These services are within the necessary legal norms and they do not violate the 1976 Copyright Act. The court also claims that the defendant does not cause any harm to the plaintiffs. There was no dissenting opinion on the matter (American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 2014).
It is necessary to note that the decision made is correct and thoughtful as it can positively affect development of this sphere of business. The support of Aereo’s position will foster development and use of new and more advanced technology in broadcasting business. Notably, Mozilla and other companies note that this strategy can potentially create more than 650,000 jobs during 5 years (American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 2014). At the same time, the decision to support the plaintiffs can create a dangerous precedent which can endanger development as well the use of innovations offered by Google and Amazon.
Besides, the decision in favor of Aereo will have numerous positive effects on development of broadcasting industry. The use of innovative technology will create a more competitive environment. Therefore, due to this innovation and development, consumers will be able to get more diverse services at more attractive prices.
Finally, it is clear that the defendant operates within the Copyright Act and it is impossible to support the plaintiffs’ position. At the same time, the case brings to the fore the need to change the act and make it more up-to-date. Clearly, the Act should encourage companies to innovate and develop but it should also secure the rights of all stakeholders involved.
Reference List
ABC, Inc. et al. & Aereo, Inc. (2012). Web.
ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2013). Web.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. & Aereo, Inc. (2014). Web.