美国案例.docx

美国案例.docx

《美国案例.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《美国案例.docx（32页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

美国案例

*2499SyllabusFN*

FN*ThesyllabusconstitutesnopartoftheopinionoftheCourtbuthasbeenpreparedbytheReporterofDecisionsfortheconvenienceofthereader.SeeUnitedStatesv.DetroitTimber&LumberCo.,200U.S.321,337,26S.Ct.282,50L.Ed.499.

TheCopyrightActof1976givesacopyrightownerthe“exclusiverigh[t]”to“performthecopyrightedworkpublicly.”17U.S.C.§106（4）.TheAct'sTransmitClausedefinesthatexclusiverighttoincludetherightto“transmitorotherwisecommunicateaperformance...ofthe[copyrighted]work...tothepublic,bymeansofanydeviceorprocess,whether*2500themembersofthepubliccapableofreceivingtheperformance...receiveitinthesameplaceorinseparateplacesandatthesametimeoratdifferenttimes.”§101.

RespondentAereo,Inc.,sellsaservicethatallowsitssubscriberstowatchtelevisionprogramsovertheInternetataboutthesametimeastheprogramsarebroadcastovertheair.Whenasubscriberwantstowatchashowthatiscurrentlyairing,heselectstheshowfromamenuonAereo'swebsite.Aereo'ssystem,whichconsistsofthousandsofsmallantennasandotherequipmenthousedinacentralizedwarehouse,respondsroughlyasfollows:

Aservertunesanantenna,whichisdedicatedtotheuseofonesubscriberalone,tothebroadcastcarryingtheselectedshow.AtranscodertranslatesthesignalsreceivedbytheantennaintodatathatcanbetransmittedovertheInternet.Aserversavesthedatainasubscriber-specificfolderonAereo'sharddriveandbeginsstreamingtheshowtothesubscriber'sscreenonceseveralsecondsofprogramminghavebeensaved.Thestreamingcontinues,afewsecondsbehindtheover-the-airbroadcast,untilthesubscriberhasreceivedtheentireshow.

Petitioners,whoaretelevisionproducers,marketers,distributors,andbroadcastersthatownthecopyrightsinmanyoftheprogramsthatAereostreams,suedAereoforcopyrightinfringement.Theysoughtapreliminaryinjunction,arguingthatAereowasinfringingtheirrightto“perform”theircopyrightedworks“publicly.”TheDistrictCourtdeniedthepreliminaryinjunction,andtheSecondCircuitaffirmed.

Held:

Aereoperformspetitioners'workspubliclywithinthemeaningoftheTransmitClause.Pp.2504–2511.

（a）Aereo“perform[s].”Itdoesnotmerelysupplyequipmentthatallowsotherstodoso.Pp.2504–2507.

（1）OneofCongress'primarypurposesinamendingtheCopyrightActin1976wastooverturnthisCourt'sholdingsthattheactivitiesofcommunityantennatelevision（CATV）providersfelloutsidetheAct'sscope.InFortnightlyCorp.v.UnitedArtistsTelevision,Inc.,392U.S.390,88S.Ct.2084,20L.Ed.2d1176,theCourtdeterminedthataCATVproviderwasmorelikeaviewerthanabroadcaster,becauseitssystem“nomorethanenhancestheviewer'scapacitytoreceivethebroadcaster'ssignals[by]provid[ing]awell-locatedantennawithanefficientconnectiontotheviewer'stelevisionset.”Id.,at399,88S.Ct.2084.Therefore,theCourtconcluded,aCATVproviderdidnotperformpublicly.TheCourtreachedthesamedeterminationinrespecttoaCATVproviderthatretransmittedsignalsfromhundredsofmilesawayinTeleprompterCorp.v.ColumbiaBroadcastingSystem,Inc.,415U.S.394,94S.Ct.1129,39L.Ed.2d415.“Thereceptionandrechannelingof[broadcasttelevisionsignals]forsimultaneousviewingisessentiallyaviewerfunction,irrespectiveofthedistancebetweenthebroadcastingstationandtheultimateviewer,”theCourtsaid.Id.,at408,94S.Ct.1129.Pp.2504–2505.

（2）In1976,CongressamendedtheCopyrightActinlargeparttorejecttheFortnightlyandTeleprompterholdings.TheActnowclarifiesthatto“perform”anaudiovisualworkmeans“toshowitsimagesinanysequenceortomakethesoundsaccompanyingitaudible.”§101.Thus,boththebroadcasterandtheviewer“perform,”becausetheybothshowatelevisionprogram'simagesandmakeaudibletheprogram'ssounds.CongressalsoenactedtheTransmitClause,whichspecifiesthatanentityperformswhenit“transmit[s]...aperformance...tothepublic.”*2501Ibid.TheClausemakesclearthatanentitythatactslikeaCATVsystemitselfperforms,evenwhenitsimplyenhancesviewers'abilitytoreceivebroadcasttelevisionsignals.Congressfurthercreatedacomplexlicensingschemethatsetsouttheconditions,includingthepaymentofcompulsoryfees,underwhichcablesystemsmayretransmitbroadcaststothepublic.§111.CongressmadeallthreeofthesechangestobringcablesystemactivitieswithintheCopyrightAct'sscope.Pp.2505–2506.

（3）BecauseAereo'sactivitiesaresubstantiallysimilartothoseoftheCATVcompaniesthatCongressamendedtheActtoreach,Aereoisnotsimplyanequipmentprovider.Aereosellsaservicethatallowssubscriberstowatchtelevisionprograms,manyofwhicharecopyrighted,virtuallyastheyarebeingbroadcast.Aereousesitsownequipment,housedinacentralizedwarehouse,outsideofitsusers'homes.Bymeansofitstechnology,Aereo'ssystem“receive[s]programsthathavebeenreleasedtothepublicandcarr[ies]thembyprivatechannelstoadditionalviewers.”Fortnightly,supra,at400,88S.Ct.2084.

ThisCourtrecognizesoneparticulardifferencebetweenAereo'ssystemandthecablesystemsatissueinFortnightlyandTeleprompter:

Thesystemsinthosecasestransmittedconstantly,whereasAereo'ssystemremainsinertuntilasubscriberindicatesthatshewantstowatchaprogram.Inothercasesinvolvingdifferentkindsofserviceortechnologyproviders,auser'sinvolvementintheoperationoftheprovider'sequipmentandselectionofthecontenttransmittedmaywellbearonwhethertheproviderperformswithinthemeaningoftheAct.ButgivenAereo'soverwhelminglikenesstothecablecompaniestargetedbythe1976amendments,thissoletechnologicaldifferencebetweenAereoandtraditionalcablecompaniesdoesnotmakeacriticaldifferencehere.Pp.2506–2507.

（b）Aereoalsoperformspetitioners'works“publicly.”UndertheClause,anentityperformsaworkpubliclywhenit“transmit[s]...aperformance...ofthework...tothepublic.”§101.Whatperformance,ifany,doesAereotransmit?

PetitionerssayAereotransmitsapriorperformanceoftheirworks,whereasAereosaystheperformanceittransmitsisthenewperformancecreatedbyitsactoftransmitting.ThisCourtassumesarguendothatAereoiscorrectandthusassumes,forpresentpurposes,thattotransmitaperformanceofanaudiovisualworkmeanstocommunicatecontemporaneouslyvisibleimagesandcontemporaneouslyaudiblesoundsofthework.UndertheCourt'sassumeddefinition,Aereotransmitsaperformancewheneveritssubscriberswatchaprogram.

WhatabouttheClause'sfurtherrequirementthatAereotransmitaperformance“tothepublic”?

Aereoclaimsthatbecauseittransmitsfromuser-specificcopies,usingindividually-assignedantennas,andbecauseeachtransmissionisavailabletoonlyonesubscriber,itdoesnottransmitaperformance“tothepublic.”ViewedintermsofCongress'regulatoryobjectives,thesebehind-the-scenestechnologicaldifferencesdonotdistinguishAereo'ssystemfromcablesystems,whichdoperformpublicly.CongresswouldasmuchhaveintendedtoprotectacopyrightholderfromtheunlicensedactivitiesofAereoasfromthoseofcablecompanies.

ThetextoftheClauseeffectuatesCongress'intent.UndertheClause,anentitymaytransmitaperformancethroughmultipletransmissions,wheretheperformanceisofthesamework.Thuswhenanentitycommunicatesthesamecontemporaneouslyperceptibleimagesandsoundstomultiplepeople,it“transmit[s]*2502...aperformance”tothem,irrespectiveofthenumberofdiscretecommunicationsitmakesandirrespectiveofwhetherittransmitsusingasinglecopyoftheworkor,asAereodoes,usinganindividualpersonalcopyforeachviewer.

Moreover,thesubscriberstowhomAereotransmitsconstitute“thepublic”undertheAct.ThisisbecauseAereocommunicatesthesamecontemporaneouslyperceptibleimagesandsoundstoalargenumberofpeoplewhoareunrelatedandunknowntoeachother.Inaddition,neithertherecordnorAereosuggeststhatAereo'ssubscribersreceiveperformancesintheircapacitiesasownersorpossessorsoftheunderlyingworks.Thisisrelevantbecausewhenanentityperformstoasetofpeople,whethertheyconstitute“thepublic”oftendependsupontheirrelationshiptotheunderlyingwork.Finally,thestatutemakesclearthatthefactthatAereo'ssubscribersmayreceivethesameprogramsatdifferenttimesandlocationsisofnoconsequence.Aereotransmitsaperformanceofpetitioners'works“tothepublic.”Pp.2507–2510.

（c）Giventhelimitednatureofthisholding,theCourtdoesnotbelieveitsdecisionwilldiscouragetheemergenceoruseofdifferentkindsoftechnologies.Pp.2510–2511.

712F.3d676,reversedandremanded.

BREYER,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichROBERTS,C.J.,andKENNEDY,GINSBURG,SOTOMAYOR,andKAGAN,JJ.,joined.SCALIA,J.,filedadissentingopinion,inwhichTHOMASandALITO,JJ.,joined.

PaulD.Clement,Washington,DC,forPetitioners.

MalcolmStewartfortheUnitedStatesasamicuscuriae,byspecialleaveoftheCourt,supportingthePetitioners.

DavidC.Frederick,Washington,DC,forRespondent.

PaulM.Smith,MatthewE.Price,Jenner&BlockLLP,PaulD.Clement,CounselofRecord,ErinE.Murphy,BancroftPLLC,Washington,DC,RichardL.Stone,AmyM.Gallegos,Jenner&BlockLLP,LosAngeles,CA,BruceP.Keller,JeffreyP.Cunard,Debevoise&PlimptonLLP,NewYork,NY,forPetitioners.

BrendaM.Cotter,GeneralCounsel,DanielBrown,DeputyGeneralCounsel,Aereo,Inc.,Boston,MA,DavidC.Frederick,Counselof