Aereo and FilmOn X stream television programming over the Internet for a monthly subscription fee. Aereo and FilmOn's technology permits subscribers to watch both live broadcast television in addition to already-aired programming. Their use of this development in technology has triggered multiple lawsuits from broadcasting companies alleging copyright violations. These cases reveal not only multiple interpretations of copyright law and its application to new and developing technologies but also a possible "loophole" in the law, which some have accused Aereo and FilmOn of exploiting. This book discusses internet television streaming and copyright laws. It then discusses remote-storage digital video recorders and the copyright laws that go along with it.

This report begins with a discussion of the technology used by Aereo and FilmOn X that permit subscribers to watch live broadcast television as well as already-aired programming. It then examines the public performance right in the Copyright Act and discusses the interpretation of the transmit clause and public performance right by the courts in the Aereo and FilmOn cases. The report concludes with a brief overview of future litigation by these parties and related legislative proposals in the 113th Congress.

This article scrutinizes the United States Supreme Court's decision in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. Aereo's streaming television service allowed subscribers to watch broadcast television on a computer, tablet, or smartphone without requiring them to be directly connected to cable, satellite, or a local antenna. Aereo's system was designed to comply with existing copyright law by using thousands of antennas, each of which was designated for only one subscriber at a time. Aereo was sued for copyright infringement by a number of leading television broadcasters. The United States Supreme Court, over a heated Scalia dissent, concluded that Aereo was 'highly similar' to a cable company, and that it therefore made 'public performances' falling within the plaintiffs' exclusive rights. Because the Aereo decision was unnecessary, unsound, and unwise, this article proposes steps that should be taken in order to avoid frustrating the development of beneficial 'cloud' computing services.

Americans increasingly turn to the computer instead of the television to gain access to their favorite shows. With this in mind, Aereo allows its subscribers to stream broadcast television content to their computers, but does not compensate the broadcasters for these retransmissions. The broadcasters argue this violates their public performance right under the Copyright Act's Transmit Clause, but because of Aereo's curious technology platform, in which thousands of tiny antennas are each assigned to a unique subscriber, infringement is uncertain. The Supreme Court will soon hear American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., arising out of the Second Circuit, and decide whether Aereo's retransmissions on the Internet constitute public performances. This Article argues that Aereo is infringing the broadcasters' public performance right and that by expanding on the earlier decision in Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., the Second Circuit misinterpreted the text and the spirit of the Copyright Act.

In Broadcasters’ Rights in the Digital Era, Sakthivel provides a cogent and insightful understanding of authors’ right vis-à-vis broadcasters’ right in the technologically advanced era especially in live streaming technology context.

In American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, the Supreme Court addressed a growing split among lower federal courts regarding the copyright liability of a business that retransmitted broadcast television programs to its subscribers for a monthly fee without obtaining a license or paying royalties. In holding that Aereo violated exclusive public performance rights guaranteed to copyright holders by the Copyright Act, the Court overturned the Second Circuit's interpretation of the Copyright Act's Transmit Clause. The Court's holding relied on Aereo's substantial similarity to cable television to conclude Aereo's system “performed” “to the public” under the Transmit Clause. This Note argues that the Court's decision in Aereo provided little guidance regarding other service providers and could threaten the development of new technologies. The uncertain state of the law after Aereo requires action by Congress to provide more guidance. A comprehensive overhaul of the Copyright Act would best address the problems in applying the Copyright Act to modern technology exemplified by the Aereo litigation.