{"id":3238,"date":"2015-01-13T04:07:58","date_gmt":"2015-01-13T04:07:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3238"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:39","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:39","slug":"abc-v-aereo-how-the-supreme-courts-flawed-rationale-will-implicate-problems-in-new-technologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/abc-v-aereo-how-the-supreme-courts-flawed-rationale-will-implicate-problems-in-new-technologies\/","title":{"rendered":"ABC v. Aereo: How the Supreme Court&#039;s Flawed Rationale Will Implicate Problems in New Technologies"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Copyright Act promotes the creation and progress of arts by protecting original works, such as by guaranteeing copyright holders the exclusive right to publicly perform their works. In an age of rapid technological development, courts have often struggled with how to best interpret and apply this public performance right to providers who stream broadcast television programs over the Internet. A central question in this debate is what constitutes a \u201cperformance\u201d under the Copyright Act. This\u00a0 Recent Development explores the Supreme Court\u2019s latest attempt at defining this issue, and argues that its decision in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. only further confuses this area of law and poses problems for other emerging technologies, including cloud storage and sharing technologies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Copyright Act promotes the creation and progress of arts by protecting original works, such as by guaranteeing copyright holders the exclusive right to publicly perform their works. In an age of rapid technological development, courts have often struggled with how to best interpret and apply this public performance right to providers who stream broadcast <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/abc-v-aereo-how-the-supreme-courts-flawed-rationale-will-implicate-problems-in-new-technologies\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,62,64],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238"}],"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=3238"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7399,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238\/revisions\/7399"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}