4 ms·

Cable companies have a license to retransmit live programming. That's a completely separate issue from time-shifted transmissions. Cablevision didn't have a li

Cable companies have a license to retransmit live programming. That's a completely separate issue from time-shifted transmissions. Cablevision didn't have a license that allowed consumers to remotely record and play back shows. But the courts decided that the company didn't need a license, because it was the users rather than Cablevision who were performing in that instance, and thus it was considered a private performance. But yeah, I'm fully aware that SCOTUS wasn't bound by the Second Circuit decision in Cablevision. I only brought it up as a thought experiment because I was interested in hearing rayiner's opinion on that.

rhino369 12y ago
The Scotus opinion didn't really differentiate between live and time-shifted transmission. It found that Aereo didn't even have the right to transmit at all. The issue of time-shifting then became unimportant. I'm not sure how SCOTUS would come out if it had seen Cablevision, but I think there is clear room for differentiation. I think you can say that time-shifting is not rebroadcast without allowing Aereo. Aereo went a step further and said well we'll rent you an antenna. That's really the part that didn't fly with SCOTUS. At least that is how I'd argue it.