Aereo

The Hollywood Reporter has this story: the broadcasters who allege Aereo's retransmission over the Internet of their free broadcast TV programmising is "copyright infringement want to find out why Aereo's patent applications state there is no simple way to access TV programming on digital devices." As a result, a judge is "allowing TV broadcasters to spend an hour deposing Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia and CTO Joseph Lipowski over statements made in patent applications," The Hollywood Reporter also reports.

The Hollywood Reporter has this piece on a conference call between investors and the CEO of Aereo, an Internet streaming service for free broadcast television that is challenging the boundaries of copyright law. CEO Chet Kanojia said that if his firm loses its court battles that "entire industries" would be threatened, Hollywood Reporter reported. "'The implication of not allowing private performance means" more people would pay more for performance licenses as well as posing a threat to entertainment companies working on cloud DVR services, Kanojia said on the call.

While streaming TV services Aereo and FilmOn X have a common cause in fighting the boundaries of copyright law and broadcast TV networks' exclusive rights to public performance of their programming, the firms' leaders seem to have have personal animus toward each other - or at least the CEO of FilmOn does after originally calling his firm Aereokiller until sued by Aereo on the name issue. The Verge reports FilmOn's billionaire owner accused Aereo of pursuing denial of service attacks against his firm in a tweet: '"@ckanojia - hey fuckhead, if you keep ddosing FilmOn you are going to pay in more ways than you can imagine.' A second message from David's account followed a few minutes later. 'What you are doing is like breaking into someone's home and smashing their shit up,' the tweet said. 'Fortunately [you] lame fuck, my geeks are smarter.'"

A federal judge is leaning toward Aereo, the firm challenging copyright law's boundaries by providing individual subscribers retransmissions over the Internet of free broadcast TV through individually assigned antennas, and against a Hearst-owned station in a Boston federal case, the Boston Globe reports.  Federal district courts in California and D.C. have ruled against Aereo's competitor, FilmOn X, but the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Aereo.

The Des Moines Register reports that a competitor to Aereo, a firm pushing the boundaries of copyright law by transmitting free broadcast television over the Internet, has fought off a subpoena. The federal judge ruled that Aereo competitor "Syncbak will not have to provide competitor Aereo with investment-related documents and labeled Aereo’s efforts to acquire emails that reference the company a 'fishing expedition,'" the paper reported.

Cases involve Aereo and another competitor FilmOn X have resulted in federal circuit splits on whether their rebroadcasting of broadcast TV shows violates intellectual property rights to exclusively control the public performance of those shows. Many predict the cases will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PBS NewsHour has a fascinating transcript of an interview with the CEO of Aereo, one of the new subscription streaming services available to "space-shift" and "time-shift" free TV broadcasts to our computers and mobile devices. Aereo was plainly designed to get around copyright restrictions on public performance rights by being set up with individualized antennas for each customer, and Aereo CEO argues that not only does his technology not violate black-letter copyright law but that it also does not violate the spirit of the law.

Here's an excerpt:

"HARI SREENIVASAN: So, you have got the antenna farms that you're building, essentially. If I'm a customer, I have one particular antenna inside of the Aereo room, so to speak.

But does it seem like a technicality, when you actually don't need 5,000 antennas in a room? You're saying it's to be by the letter of the law. Are you violating the spirit of the law?

But does it seem like a technicality, when you actually don't need 5,000 antennas in a room? You're saying it's to be by the letter of the law. Are you violating the spirit of the law?

CHET KANOJIA: Not at all. I think Congress always intended that consumers to have the ability to have an antenna.

And it's a simple manifestation of that, saying, well, that's what the intent was, the consumer can have an antenna. So, whether I put it in my window or my roof or my neighbor's roof, those aren't restrictions that Congress ever intended or proposed.

So, I think it complies with actually the spirit of the law as well, and perhaps more so, because the idea that consumers should have that choice was always intended by Congress."

Aereo, the television digital distributor, is arguing that an injunction entered in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against its competitor, FilmOn X, does not affect its legal grounds to rebroadcast free TV programming over the Internet because it uses different technology. Hearst, which has a TV station in the Boston area, argues in the District of Massachusetts that the D.C. injunction against Aereo-competitor FilmOn X (once known as Aereokiller) shows that the use of individual antennas to rebroadcast its copyrighted television content does not defeat its public performance rights.