Yesterday, we noted that Judge Nathan had dismissed a state law unfair competition claim brought against Aereo, an online television service, on the grounds that it was preempted by the Copyright Act. Today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge moved for permission to file an amicus brief on behalf of Aereo to counter the surviving claims against Aereo under the Copyright Act itself. In the amicus brief attached to the motion, the EFF and PK argue that Aereo’s business is protected by Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008), which held that “the transmission of a copyrighted work is a private performance outside the exclusive rights of the copyright owner when it is one-to-one, that is, made to a single individual or family and social acquaintances.” Here, the amici argue that the transmittal of broadcast television over the internet is no different from recording live TV on a VCR or DVR and watching it (among friends or alone) at a later time.
Recent Blog Posts
Judge Failla: CFPB Anti-Retaliation Protections Do Not Cover Complaints About CMBS Southern District Jury Awards Terrorism Victims $218 Million in Case Against Palestinian Authority and PLO Judge McMahon Grants Interlocutory Appeal of Case Challenging Sirius Radio’s Right to Broadcast Songs Predating 1972 Copyright Act Judge Rakoff: Challenge to Countrywide “Hustle” Jury Verdict “Borders on the Frivolous” In Allowing Foreign Exchange Price-Fixing Case to Proceed, Judge Schofield Disagrees With Judge Buchwald’s LIBOR Ruling Judge Engelmayer Rejects Class Certification Premised on Extra Shares Being “Secretly” Available and Depressing Price Judge McMahon: Turtles’ Appearance as Guests on Sirius Radio Does Not Waive Copyright Claims Judge Furman Allows GM to Withhold Jenner & Block Interview Notes Underlying Public Report on Ignition Switch Issues Judge Nathan Remands Stuy Town Lender Dispute Because Federal Questions Related Only to Computation of Damages Judge Forrest: Latest in Litigious Family Saga Is Really a “Simple Breach of Contract Case”