Aereo Ruling Could Impact Pandora

itwbennett writes "Aereo's court battles are far from over, to be sure, but the ruling earlier this month that the TV streaming service doesn't violate copyright laws must have the folks at music streaming service Pandora shaking their heads, wondering why they're still paying royalties that currently consume more than half their revenues. The implications of Aereo's business model are far-reaching and may ultimately 'be resolved by Congress, just as it did when cable first came on the scene, by passing legislation to redefine a public performance,' writes broadcast industry attorney David Oxenford."

Comments

Pandora needs to change technology to win.

[duckgod]

If Pandora buys a cd(digital music would probably have to wait for another legal victory) and only streams it out to 1 user at a time then I could see this ruling helping Pandora. I doubt this is close to the black magic media distribution that Pandora employs currently. Math is hard but I am thinking it would take a while for this system to be more profitable then the current licensing model.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win.

[Jheaden]

Except that Pandora doesn't exactly stream live radio. They generate content streams customized to the listener (or in the case of the genre "stations" specific to that genre). So yeah the closest Pandora could get would be a few million cds and some sort of switching mechanism for the stream.

They pay for access to the content, plus a per play fee. Really don't see how the ruling could be in any way applied to Pandora

Re: Pandora needs to change technology to win.

[cpt kangarooski]

No, that would still be public performance. It's defined in the Copyright Act, and includes performances to only one person at a time:

To perform or display a work âoepubliclyâ meansâ"
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Instead there'd have to buy one CD per user who wanted to listen.

They could save momey by renting them to users. Except that you can't rent music CDs as a rule due to an exception to first sale ( 17 USC 109 (b)(1)(a) ), they might need to create a complicated system of selling and repurchasing discs on demand which would probably not convince a court that it was something other than rental.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Or a $20 50mW FM transmitter, a stripped bit of wire to use as an antenna, and a faraday cage for each user's personal "station". That would put them pretty much exactly where aero is. There are no licensing requirements for FM stations that broadcast under 200 feet in the US and the faraday cage could drop the broadcast range to milimeters. They could even have the transmit/receive antennas on the same circuit board.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win.

[camperdave]

Or a $20 50mW FM transmitter, a stripped bit of wire to use as an antenna, and a faraday cage for each user's personal "station". That would put them pretty much exactly where aero is.

Not even close. Aereo is merely relaying an existing signal. Pandora is originating the signal.

Re:Pandora needs to change technology to win.

[cdrudge]

It wasn't CDs, but rather DVDs, but that is essentially what Zediva tried with individual DVDs and players. It ultimately didn't work out for them in the end, although I don't believe that there was final verdict that said what they were attempting to do was illegal. If another company wanted to try the legal challenge, they better have VERY deep pockets.

Re:Playing back a recording

[wierd_w]

I read the words on the paper, silently, and to myself.
Private performance.

I read the words aloud in my own home. The cats look at me like I am insane. (Because I probably am for reading aloud to them to begin with, since they can't comprehend the words I am speaking anyway.)
Private performance.

I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book.
Private performance.

I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading.
Public performance.

One of these things is not like the others.
This isn't hard.

Re:Playing back a recording

[MightyYar]

This isn't hard.

I disagree. People are surprised to learn that showing a movie to a bunch of school kids is "a performance". People violate the law all the time and don't even realize it, because you have to be an expert to learn all of the intricacies of copyright law. I really don't understand why we apply it to non-commercial use.

Re:Playing back a recording

[PRMan]

Yeah. Because it's for educational purposes, which is specifically exempted from copyright.

Re:Playing back a recording

[MightyYar]

Good. Now define "educational".

Re:Playing back a recording

[MightyYar]

By the way, here's a 5-part series on how simple copyright is in education.

Uh, why?

[jon3k]

What Pandora does is completely different. Aereo is rebroadcasting a live signal. Pandora is replaying a recorded song any number of times to any number of people. Aereo has an antenna for each subscriber. How in the world is this even remotely comparable?

Re:Playing back a recording

[TubeSteak]

I watch broadcast tv
Private performance.

I record broadcast tv to my computer and play it back later
Private performance.

I record broadcast tv to my computer and stream it to a computer/tablet/phone over the internet
Private performance

I rent an antenna, a hard drive, and bandwidth from a 3rd party and record broadcast tv onto the hard drive so that I can play it back over the internet.
*Second Circuit Court says: Private performance.

Pandora is wondering why this can't apply to them as well.
*The decision is limited to NY, Vermont, and Connecticut.

Re:Playing back a recording

[wierd_w]

The intention was that what the law says is public, vs private, is not what the general public has in mind for that. The added joy of people unknowingly violating that law just underscores this fact, and only serves to show that the definitions used for legal applications are byzantine, and purposefully convoluted to serve a specific economic agenda.

Personally, I feel that the legal system is not supposed to be used in such a fashion; [to create specific legal categories of infringement, specifically to monetize clearly non-economic, and private activities via renumeration of court awarded fees and judgements.]

To me, such activities say two things:

1) There is an influential demographic that is suffering from an entitlement complex, who feels they are entitled to financial compensation for non-economic uses of things they have created, or any time a person other than their sublicensed client in any way accessess that intellectual property. Eg, they think they should be paid if I lend a book to a friend, and other stupid things.

2) this demographic has paid substantial sums of money to cuddle up with politicians, for the express purposes of having these definitions and categories of infringement, and accepted methods of renumeration drafted and signed into law.

I am apt to point out that a supreme court judge asserted that just because one has enjoyed a living performing a certain service for a time, does not mean that the courts are compelled to ensure their continued profit from that service, nor for the wheels of progress to be halted or reversed. (Paraphrased)

In other words, the interested parties lobbying for this legislation do not actually have a legitimate position from which to frame their demands, and the legal definitions in question should never have been drafted.