Broadcast Television on Your Phone? | ABC v. Aereo
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedler...
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 14 of Supreme Court Briefs, a company trying to show broadcast television on phones and tablets gets sued by, you guessed it, broadcast companies.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/c...
Additional sources used:
www.nytimes.co...
www.scotusblog....
www.supremecou...
www.slate.com/a...
New York City
March 14, 2012
A company called Oreo launches. Uh yeah, they provide the best cookies around, and...hold up...wait a minute...my mistake, I’m sorry. A company called Aereo (air-e-o) launches, allowing people to view live broadcast television on Internet-connected devices. For $8 to $12 a month, viewers could access the airwaves on their phone or tablet no matter where they were.
Well a bunch of broadcasting companies didn’t like that so much. Two weeks before the launch, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX had all sued Aereo, arguing that the company threatened their copyrighted material because the streaming of live broadcast television in this way counted as a “public performance,” which means they needed to get a special license. The four broadcasting companies argued that Aereo broke part of the interestingly named Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, which said you have to negotiate with broadcasters before you carry their signals. ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX all basically said Aereo was stealing both their programming and customers.
After the broadcasting companies failed to stop the launch of Aereo in federal court, they appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This court agreed with the lower court, saying Aereo had the right to do this as their streams to subscribers were not “public performances,” so there wasn’t copyright infringement.
This happened on April 1, 2013. By this time, Aereo was quickly growing and expanding across the country, getting awesome reviews from both the media and customers.
But the broadcasting companies weren’t done yet...obviously. I’ve found corporations tend to have a lot of money to take others to court, for some strange reason.
Anyway, the broadcasters appealed to the Supreme Court, and on January 10, 2014, the Court agreed to hear the case. This time around, the broadcasters had lots of allies, including the NFL, Major League Baseball, the Department of Justice, the United States Copyright Office, and some judge in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, who blocked Aereo in his district. Probably due to those allies, it was not looking good for Aereo.
On June 25, 2014, the Court ruled in favor of the broadcasters, 6-3, and against Aereo. The Court explained Aereo was definitely breaking copyright law as it acted like a cable company that rebroadcasted copyrighted content.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the dissenting minority, saying the Court should not be making judgements on new technologies- it was the job of Congress.
Before the Supreme Court decision, Aereo had about 80,000 subscribers. Well, three days after the decision, they all lost the service. Aereo filed for bankruptcy on November 21, 2014, and was later bought by TiVo for $1 million.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. kept the status quo in broadcasting. Many argue it limited innovation. Critics say it’s likely the consumers who got screwed over the most in this one.
#supremecourt #scotus #apgov
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Already knew who won because I never heard of this service
+themanwiththepan same here on this one.
Very interesting case and though I disagree with the man vehemently on many issues, I think Scalia is right in this case; it's not the court's job to decide what the law around new media or technologies is: that's why we have an elected congress!
Excellent point. I agree with Scalia...sometimes :)
I do like some of his opinions about Originalism and his deep respect for the separation of powers. I don't think Gorsich can live up to the legend. He was definitely a very far right justice in many ways; however, he was also a great legal mind and a fairly libertarian justice on several issues. For the record, I am libertarian.
Bingo.
I rarely ever side with Scalia and I had to second guess myself here thinking maybe I’m wrong that Scalia and Thomas are the people I’m agreeing with and not rbg lol
I agree with the court, and partially with Scalia. It's Congress's job to fix the laws they wrote. It's the courts job to work with the laws Congress has given them. Is there any law that says that the courts need to leave decisions on new technology to congress?
Great video, some points missed.
Aereo had:
1 antenna per 1 subscriber AND
You could not watch any channel outside of your broadcast area (zip code based) AND
You could only watch your local channels while physically inside your local area (on any device that Aereo supported)
They effectively extended your antenna and really tried to play by the local broadcasting rules.
Cable companies are (usually) getting the streamed broadcasts then rebroadcasted to many (1 to many).
Thanks for pointing that out. Pertinent, and it's inevitable I end up leaving info like this out with these being so Brief. :)
"1 antenna per 1 subscriber"
I'm not giving an opinion on this case as a whole but I would argue that having 1 antenna per subscriber doesn't really matter. They could have just as well used one antenna and divided the stream to multiple customers. Instead of one antenna, they used a large array of many small ones. There was no technological reason for multiple antennas. It was just legal trickery that didn't make it functionally any different from using one bigger antenna instead of an array of smaller ones.
I see.
I wonder what the case would look like if they sold you the antenna and you had to be in the same city as the antenna to use it?
Then it'd be practically no different from being in the same house as the antenna.
Now look at me with Netflix, Hulu, Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, HBO Max, Amazon Prime Video, and Peacock on my phone.
I think this is a rare case where the internet actually agrees with the three "conservative" judges who sided with Aereo.
Liberals suck :(
@@pippincovington1348 🙄
You’d be surprised how rare the far left wing of the Supreme Court makes pro-people decisions
Because it’s not republicans vs democrats it’s the common man vs big business. 🤣
Scalia was right. The law didn't cover this technology/
Except like no. Dissenting here was rite, but doin it on those grounds was just not rite.
Remember the Betamax case? That had to do with new tech that the law didnt account for and no one felt that needed to be covered by congress until after the ruling when the folks that sued tried to get congress to pass a bill banning such (which nve materialized thank gods)
Theres countless other examples like this too. Like, the right to bear arms bein extended not to sawed off shotguns but extended to machine guns; simply bcuz thats how judges ruled at differin times.
One cud just as easily argue that the 2A was nvr intended to apply to newer tech and that it only covered arms available at the time of the amendment bein written and they cud just as easily argue the law doesnt cover such weapons and that the SCOTUS shudnt decide bcuz its new tech and that shud be up to congress to decide.
But nope, no one dissented on procedural grounds in either of those cases.
Just bcuz theres new tech doesnt mean we cant use the existing laws to interpret how this new tech shud be viewed legally. What shud happen then if Congress disagrees with a SCOTUS decision and believes they shud have the rite to decide the law here... Is congress makes a new law to affect the new thing and waits for SCOTUS to determine if the new law is constitutional or not shud it ever come to the courts.
See DOMA where Congress didnt like a SCOTUS rulin and changed the law and then SCOTUS came back later and was all "Naw, this is still unconstitutional and heres why". No one there tried to dissent by arguing procedural grounds or insistin that it shud be up to congress to make the laws for newer things like the idea of same gender marriage as a thing (which was def not on anyones mind when they wrote the 14th amendment; but which is still protected by said amendment, bcuz SCOTUS interprets how old laws affect modern times!
This doesn't really explore the issue fully. All this was doing was giving access to freely broadcast TV signals to devices that don't have built in TV tuners. Aereo did everything it could to comply with the law including a bunch of ridiculous and unnecessary things technologically like providing each customer with its own remote antennae. The Supreme Court's decision basically had no rationality behind it besides "these companies don't like what you are doing so we're going to stop you from doing it." They also didn't allow Aereo to negotiate retransmission fees the way cable companies do simply because Aereo wasn't a cable company. The broadcasting companies simply wanted it shut down, and they finally got what they wanted.
+Bryan Colley Thank you so much for your comment. I feel like this is why I lean toward Aereo on this one, which might have been evident in the video.
This is why sometimes I lean more on the libertarian side
It’s to their own demise since cable is a dying breed today
Do you agree with the Supreme Court case in this case? Why or why not?
It's funny because the result of this case has ultimately lost people from viewing network television with the rise of Netflix
Do you know what kind of witnesses Aereo had besides maybe the CEO and Subscribers??
I agree because Aereo met the statutory definition of a cable company. Ere go they had to be regulated as such.
What I think is weird is about this case is, all the liberal justices agreed with the broadcasters, while most of the conservatives sided with Aereo. Usually, you expect the conservative judges to uphold the status quo, not the liberals.
Shady Queens was eeusursespy ether was was the same but but I
To be honest, I actually kind of agree with Aereo on this one.
Intellectual property law is heinous, the consumer always loses.
The supreme court can be wrong so hopefully we adjust it eventually
I kinda feel bad for areo
I disagree with the court in this case mostly because it wasn’t completely violating copyright law, it was simply turning your phone or iPad into a mobile tv like the xfinity app to an extent
But Aerio wasn’t paying the broadcasters to display their broadcasts
And now, not much later, things have changed. Now there’s TH-cam tv, I think Apple can do it to in some way too through the Apple tv app. So I guess big companies can do something like this, but small ones can’t...? Weird.
I don't agree with the SCOTUS, because they are public broadcasters...they use an allocated amount of public broadcast EM space. Also unlike Cable Aereo doesn't need to have a monopoly because of limited amount of space for wires. So We can conclude that: A. Yes, They are acting like cable companies but B. they shouldn't have the regulation of cable companies. And C. the broadcasting companies shouldn't push around their copyright because it is freely available over the air.
+greatgerbil Excellent analysis. What do you mean by "limited amount of space for wires?"
Gonna have to side with the broadcast companies on this one. Looks like Aereo was just freebooting in this case - and charging its customers a small monthly fee.
Especially considering that most broadcast television is available for free already it does seem like Aereo was just wanting to make a quick buck
I’d argue that’s not true because they are providing you with the service of broadcasting it to your phone. If you don’t own a tv this is a cheap way to watch nightly news
I am believe that the courts are to uphold the law of the land and based on the law of the land at the time this was not copyright infringement. It is up to congress to limit the people not the courts.
What a BS case. Aereo has a right to compete and provide quality services the other companies weren't providing. Aereo should had to pay any relating cost obtaining the rights to show and broadcasting it through the internet.
Destroying business and innovation instead of trying to adapt to it, just another victim in the piracy argument rather than trying to make money on a hugely expanding market
Vidyagamesnake If it were only the broadcasters on one side and Aero on the other, I would agree with you completly, but as soon as the NFL and MLB joined the broadcasters, Aero’s case was doomed. Their live sport contents are subject to broadcadting agreement and if Aero had no contract or agreement with the leagues, they were in clear violation
If anyone was wondering if the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was involved in this: I would wish to say this: PBS was not involved in this case as they rely on sponsorships and viewer donations more than transmitting fees. Even if they were: they would also go against Aereo.
Alito, Thomas and Scalia. I bet you you wouldn't have thought 3 conservative justices would support free market this much and go against huge companies like this. But here we are. This is why we need judges with libertarian values on as many areas as possible.
Conservative justices tend to err closer to originalist and libertarian values than their progressive counterparts.
Ironically enough those "libertarian" judges tend to hurt civil rights and freedoms the most. Just look how they decided on gay marriage or stand on abortion.
@@logantca Unfortunately Kennedy and Roberts backed massive corporations.
I side with Aereo, freedom and stuff.
We nowadays do have tv broadcast streaming but the companies that do are at least doing it the correct way by actually paying for the licenses to carry said broadcasting. Aereo had the right idea but went about it the wrong way.
So could you not watch broadcast TV via streaming in the US in 2012?
@@ow4744 no but now you can with
Pluto tv
Xumo tv
plex tv
Freevee tv before streaming services do the same thing aereo try to do.
Fascinating case. I'll have to check out Scalia's dissent.
I dont get this. Whats the difference between me watching local TV on my phone, or walking around with a digital TV and watching it for free anyway??
The best part of this is it just kind of sealed they're fate and have been dealing with a slow painful death since then.
Aereo sounds like if someone was bootlegging a free concert. Just because you're allowed to be there and watch it and nobody made you pay to get in, doesn't mean you're allowed to record and rebroadcast the show, you still don't own it.
Instead of adapting companies just bring down innovation. Whats frustrating is that similar cases like recording broadcast show that in the long term it will often benefit corporations. Corporations now run so much that competition is often taken out legally or through other means leaving innovation to be stippled.
President during this time: Barack Obama
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Argued April 22, 2014
Decided June 25, 2014
Case Duration: 58 Days
Decision: 6-3 in favor of ABC (Roberts, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsburg. Alito, Thomas, Scalia for Aereo.)
And now it's biting them in the ass as more and more people cancel cable.
I agree with the dissent, this should have been legislated and not adjudicated. Having said that, it is interesting that the "broadcasting area" of over the air and cable vs. the internet is a complete disconnect. There is no way it could have been left alone. Something had to be done.
I can't believe Scalia died for our sins
🙄
It's interesting to think that if Aereo won this case, and assuming they won all of the other lawsuits that they would have afterwards, they would probably be a huge service today, probably going right up against Hulu.
The more of these videos i see the more I wonder how ginsburg got so popular
Hey Mr Beat!
What was your major and do you have any advice for a high school student approaching their senior year, considering maybe going to school to become a history teacher?
History is something I truly love and I think teaching it would be incredibly fulfilling.
Thanks!
+Breezy Blink My first degree was in Journalism. When I was a senior, I never would have imagined that someday I'd be a teacher. Kudos to you, though, for considering this path. My best advice would be to make sure you really love working with ALL types of people before you take on this career. Teaching is, first and foremost, about inspiring people and building relationships. Have a great senior year!
Did you end up majoring in history??
How is it I sided with the monsters on this one? Poor Aereo.
+Step Back History So you support evil corporations now? ;)
this was definitely big corporation vs multiple massive corporations
True
Well wasn’t Aereo just free booting or something
+Step Back History companies are corrupted no question about it but in this particular case I feel like the broadcasters were justified this new company was broadcasting their stuff illegally. Which does violate copyright laws.
I am gonna have to agree with the Corporations here. What Aero did was copyright infringement and piracy.
I believe it is for the legislative not judicial branch to make a decision on that.
In hindsight, the broadcasters were incredibly shortsighted. If they had allowed this to go through we might have taken a different path than to the unsustainable streaming ecosystem we are in now. The broadcasters could have found a way to make broadcast tv portable and relevant, rather than cede their business model to video on demand
Has Justice Alito ever disagreed with the late Justice Scalia in any case?
Not that I know of :)
4th Amendment cases. Justice Scalia tended to have a loose view which often put him with the liberals while Justice Alito tends to side with police.
TH-camTV has entered the chat
TH-camTV was great until they started adding channels nobody wanted and thus increasing the overall cost to a point to where it was equivalent to a cable or satellite service, and at that point the service is rendered useless because:
If you live in a rural area why would you want to waste your limited internet bandwidth on TV when you can get it through satellite, bandwidth free for the same price
Or if you live in an urban area: where you can just bundle cable tv with your internet where it would probably be cheaper than buying internet Tv and internet anyway.
Can you make a video about the best Presidential Biographies?
heres the problem it was an old dog fighting an up hill battle, now we watch hulu and many other things beside there air wave. They should have made there own apps to combat this and make it better then aereo did, but no they have to butt in and let the gorvment give them a flipping milk bottle
Wait, you can't do that in the US? Weird.
Kudos to Antonin Scalia!
Yeah, this is the strange one where I side with the conservative, although perhaps not for the reason they decided. I think one can apply old laws to new technologies (to an extent). My problem is that this was effectively broadcasting what was already freely available over the air.
Your videos are great! You earned a subscriber 🙂
+Valo Tutua Thank you so much! Welcome to the channel :D
Mr. Beat I like your videos :)
The cable companies would have loved for this to go the other way. Then they could simply re-broadcast without paying like this company did.
I ***rly*** hate it when one of the Justices is all "Naw, this aint our job" bcuz no... This literally is your job and thats a shitty cop out for votin against somethin.
I agree with dissentin here, but disagree with the dissenting reason given.
If congress disagrees with a SCOTUS rulin they can and will make their own law to try to overturn the rulin; as shown by them doin exactly that when they ruled flag burning legal.
We cant rely on Congress to write laws for things when the thing is actively in dispute; Congress does not and cannot act quickly and has been notoriously slow when it comes to adaptin laws to new technology.
The whole damn point of the modern SCOTUS is to rule on things like new technology and how it is affected by existing laws. As it was SCOTUS job to decide in the Betamax case; it is just as much their job to decide in the Aereo case.
Same thing for like when the SCOTUS interprets how the 14th amendment applies to a changing USA; eg like them rulin that the 14th amendment protected same gendered marriage or dulin that it protects against workplace discrimination based not just on what ones sex is but on their sexuality or gender as well.
And in all those cases, theres nearly always 1-3 judges dissentin on literally just procedural grounds prty much arguin that 'Naw, Congress needs to make a new law here and we cant possibly rule on an interpretation here as the 14th amendment only exists in the vacuum of time in which it was created and cant apply to future things'... But hilariously these folks dissentin here dont think to ever dissent on procedural grounds when it comes to gun control laws >.> Suddenly oh yea, thats entirely their job and we shudnt have to update the constitution with a new amendment to cover automatic weapons or to cover other innovations in gunmaking.
Like, thats what pisses me off the most about these procedural grounds dissenters is that they flip flop based on the politics of the issue at hand; despite their whole existence as SCOTUS being intended to be feee from the politics of USA.
Tbh, if I was one of the big companies, I probably would've went at Aereo too 😭💀
Fast forward few years later we know have Pluto tv and Xumo tv aereo had the right idea but they did everything the wrong way and both Pluto and Xumo are free.
I agree with the dissenting opinion judge this is really something congress should decide
what the fuck i like scalia now
As for me it should be obvious. Aereo was using their signal without licence. Supreme Court was right.
Where is that world war 2 video I suggested like a year ago?
+jack loves youtube Are you a Patreon supporter now?
Thanks
I Support: Indecisive
To be fair, their cookies are delicious.
I'm so happy thr networks won and why was CNN not in this case?!!
Aereo was not broadcasting cable TV networks
Aereo wasn't allowed to broadcast Live TV because the Broadcasting Companies had apps so it's clear there is Copyright
That's a good point
I guess you wont mind if i take your videos, post them on my channel and present them as my own!
Hie…
s
I’m gonna be completely honest I never even heard of this Ariole company until this video. However I absolutely agree with the broadcaster here. They don’t have the license or contents from the broadcasters that own the program means that they’re sharing for them to have the right to Broadcast it. I honestly can’t believe that they had to go all the way to the supreme court to get this ruling the way it was this should’ve been a no brainer that this was copyright. It may be new technology but they can’t just take content that they don’t own an air on their device without the permission of the companies that own the rights to that contents. It may be new technology but they don’t have the rights to test other Companies contents. Without their permission!
Do a 2020 election purediction
+JJ Holmes Oh goodness. It's way too early for that!
No it's isn't
aereo = freebootin