The U.S. Supreme Court hands down a ruling against TV-internet start-up company Aereo.
FOX News Radio's Jared Halpern reports:
That 6-3 ruling says that the TV-internet start-up Aereo does violate copyright laws by using these tiny antennas to allow subscribers to watch broadcast network television without having actually to pay any of those subscriber fees. The four major broadcast networks filed suit challenging this company, saying that they violated the copyright rules. Aereo says they did not because they simply were allowing people to watch content online and they were free of any sort of those network fees. This is a divided decision by the Supreme Court, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer -- again, 6-3 -- says that this internet start-up Aereo has violated copyright laws by allowing people to watch network television without having to hook up their television to any sort of network.
One thing that this case also does is that it says that this is not stomping this technology altogether. It actually goes out of its way, this opinion, to say that is is not a ruling on any future emerging technologies.
Read a statement from Aereo CEO and Founder Chet Kanojia on the United States Supreme Court Decision:
"Today's decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We've said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today's decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, 'to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.' (Majority, page 17)That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?
"Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country's fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle."
"Justice Scalia's dissent gets it right. He calls out the majority's opinion as 'built on the shakiest of foundations.' (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that 'The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.' (Dissent, page 11)"
"We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world."