Participants at today’s SNL Kagan TV and Radio Finance Summit say the best outcome for broadcasters in their fight against Barry Diller’s Internet streaming service would be a court reversal that would put it out of business while the various cases work their way through the courts. But that’s not likely and the matter could go to the Supreme Court. Another option to resolve the dispute would require new copyright legislation from Congress.
SNL KAGAN TV AND RADIO FINANCE SUMMIT
‘What If’ Scenarios On The Fate Of Aereo
As the legal battle against Aereo works its way through multiple arenas, an expert following the case says the best broadcasters could hope for at this point is that a New York Court reverses its decision to allow the Internet streaming service to continue while awaiting trial, “and forces Aereo out of operation.”
Unfortunately, however, that scenario is “not likely to happen,” says Harry Cole, an Arlington, Va., attorney who specializes in mass media. “It requires several miracles.”
Speaking Thursday at the 30th annual SNL Kagan TV and Radio Finance Summit in New York, Cole says that the “second best-case scenario” would be for the New York federal appeals court stick to its original ruling that Aereo can continue to operate — and that a Los Angeles court, which ruled against a smaller competitor, Aereokiller, do the same.
Aereokiller is offline as the result of the L.A. court ruling in broadcasters’ favor.
If those two opposing opinions stand, the issue could wind up in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which could rule definitively by October 2014, Cole says.
That scenario, too, has factors working against it from actually happening — most notably the possibility that the court could refuse to hear the case, he says.
BRAND CONNECTIONS
Although the question of whether Aereo has the right to stream TV stations without compensating them for it is at the core of broadcasters’ legal challenges, the first issue that has to be resolved is whether the streaming service has the right to operate while pending trial.
The Supreme Court “could reject it because it’s just about injunctions,” Cole says.
In Cole’s opinion, the best way for broadcasters, who claim Aereo’s service is tantamount to copyright infringement, to see their battle against Aereo resolved is for Congress to review the existing copyright laws, which were created in 1976. There’s more room for both sides to get a result they agree with going through the legislature, he says.
In addition, a revision of the Copyright Act is necessary given the enormous changes in media that have occurred since it was approved.
“There is evidence that Congress tried to foresee technological advancements and address them,” Cole says. “But things have changed too much.”
Comments (3)
Jeff Groves says:
June 6, 2013 at 6:41 pm
As for the Media Industry, I see the whole system collapsing like a house of cards. People are getting fed up with what they areb being provided with. Too Many Commercials, and too little variety. A House divided against itself CANNOT STAND.l
Andrea Rader says:
June 6, 2013 at 6:53 pm
How does one go about sustaining a business where consumers don’t want to watch commercials OR pay for the content in any other way and the Copyright Act becomes so shot through of holes as to be rendered meaningless?
Eric Koepele says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:04 pm
What worries me is that in 1976 Congress decided it was in the public interest to allow cable operators to retransmit local TV signals without compensating broadcasters. They were trying to foster the development of the new medium of cable and diversify TV offerings. What if Congress decides it is in the public interest to allow Aereo and its competitors to retransmit broadcast TV signals without compensating broadcasters? They could deem it in the public interest to foster competition to cable and satellite, with their over-sized bundles and reluctance to offer channels a la carte. Or will policymakers say no, it’s in the interest, in a proliferating media world, to preserve protections for copyright holders?