{"id":1901,"date":"2013-09-10T16:41:36","date_gmt":"2013-09-10T16:41:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1901"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","slug":"aereo-coming-soon-to-a-city-near-youor-is-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/aereo-coming-soon-to-a-city-near-youor-is-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Aereo: Coming Soon to a City Near You\u2026Or Is It?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, September 10, 2013, by Natalie Deyenka
\nThis past April 2013, things were looking pretty good for Aereo<\/a>, a company that offers streaming from major broadcast channels on a number of compatible devices such as iPhones, iPads, or televisions using a system of individual antennas.\u00a0 Not too thrilled at the prospect of having their content broadcast for free, a number of companies filed suit against Aereo<\/a>, alleging copyright infringement<\/a> for public performance of their content.
\nHowever, in what was a huge disappointment for broadcasting companies<\/a>, in April 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aereo<\/a>.\u00a0 Overall, things were looking pretty good for Aereo, who has been making plans to expand to different parts of the country.\u00a0 Currently, Aereo is available in Boston, New York, and Miami but it plans to expand<\/a> to at least 22 other cities across the country, including the cities of Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Chicago, Houston, and Washington D.C.<\/p>\n

However, Aereo\u2019s good luck may be about to run out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Things looked even more promising for Aereo when one of the companies that had previously tried to sue it, Time Warner Cable, started voicing some support for the service as a means of managing a fee dispute between itself and CBS.<\/a>
\nHowever, Aereo\u2019s good luck may be about to run out.\u00a0 A copycat company similar to Aereo, FilmOn X (formerly known as Aereokiller) has not had the same success in the courtroom.\u00a0 In December 2012, a federal district court in the Ninth Circuit granted an injunction against the company, notwithstanding the contrary decision in the Second Circuit regarding Aereo<\/a> in the case, Fox Television Stations Inc. v. BarryDriller Content Systems PLC<\/i><\/a>.\u00a0 <\/i>
\nThe California ruling against Aereokiller (now FilmOn X) did not appear to faze Aereo too much and Aereo continued to make plans to expand westward, however, just not too <\/i>far westward<\/a>.\u00a0 However, last week, in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC<\/i><\/a>, a federal district court in Washington D.C. found the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision more reasonable than that of the Second Circuit and held that FilmOn X was in violation of the Copyright Act and was committing copyright infringement.\u00a0 Oh wait.\u00a0 Wasn\u2019t Aereo planning on expanding its service to serve precisely that area?\u00a0 Now it\u2019s starting to look like that\u2019s no longer such a good idea<\/a>.\u00a0 To further complicate things, Aereo is meeting progressively stronger resistance in places where it has <\/i>expanded, for example, Boston<\/a>, where it is being sued by an ABC affiliate.
\nTo further complicate things, this week, the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in an appeal of its BarryDriller<\/i> decision.\u00a0 With the recent decision in Washington D.C., as well as the district court decision in the Ninth Circuit, there seems to be good reason to think that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold the injunction against FilmOn X.\u00a0 The result?\u00a0 Two competing decisions from two different circuits might just mean a trip to the Supreme Court<\/a>.
\nIn short, Aereo might very well be coming to a city near you, but will it be there to stay?
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, September 10, 2013, by Natalie Deyenka This past April 2013, things were looking pretty good for Aereo, a company that offers streaming from major broadcast channels on a number of compatible devices such as iPhones, iPads, or televisions using a system of individual antennas.\u00a0 Not too thrilled at the prospect of having their content …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1901"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7586,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1901\/revisions\/7586"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}