The Supreme Court Just Decided an Internet Case No One Understands

Aereo is probably toast, but don’t worry, the Internet and the cloud are safe.

<a href=:"http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-112158140/stock-photo-best-internet-concept-of-global-business-from-concepts-series.html?src=dt_last_search-7">Source</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, handed over-the-air broadcasting giants—including ABC, NBC, and Disney—a big victory over Aereo, a tiny, internet-based startup. Aereo’s lawyers had warned the high court that a ruling against the company would sound a death knell for other Internet technology, such as cloud-based computing. But in all likelihood, the internet will be fine.

Here’s a brief history of the case: Aereo, a small Brooklyn based start-up, operates thousands of tiny antennas that capture signals from public television broadcasts. It charges its customers about eight bucks a month to select programs and record and stream this content to their Internet devices via the cloud. It has been touted as the VCR of the future.

When major broadcasting networks found out that a little company was streaming their copyrighted content online without paying them any kind of copyright or transmission fees, they were understandably miffed. In their petition to the Supreme Court, the broadcasters claimed Aereo is “a direct assault” on broadcast television and copyright law. In response, Aereo contended that because it rents out thousands of tiny individual antennas to subscribers and these subscribers personally control what is recorded, its content is not a repeat performance of previously aired, copyrighted content to a public audience—it’s a simple recording done in a remote location, akin to what anyone could do at home with a DVR.

The Supreme Court decided that Aereo’s work was too similar to services provided by actual cable companies, and that Aereo was using technological gimmicks to skirt copyright laws and fees. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked during the case whether Aereo is too similar to a cable company.)

Many legal experts and Internet watchers saw this David-versus-Goliath case as being bigger than Aereo. The company argued that a ruling against it could kill the cloud computing technology industry. Its lawyers maintained that any content uploaded to the cloud would be immediately under strict supervision. For example, two people with the same uploaded video placed on Dropbox or iCloud could be violating laws that prohibit publicly performing copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. During oral arguments, the justices—perhaps not the most technologically savvy group—were confused about the possible impact on innovative and upcoming cloud technology.

But the Internet is probably safe. The court ruled that “cloud based storage devices” are not affected by the decision because “they ‘offer consumers more numerous and convenient means of playing back copies that the consumers have already lawfully acquired.'” Although Aereo had repeatedly cited the “fear” of the cloud computing industry, cloud operators did not publicly express any fright.

This ruling, though a win for big TV, won’t help the industry that much. In 2013, Business Insider reported that “the TV business is having its worst year ever.” According to ISI Group, an equity research firm, in the past five years, nearly 5 million cable subscribers have abandoned ship. (Business Insider has a bunch of stats about just how screwed the TV industry is.) People are paying for online content like Netflix and Hulu, and more and more content is going where the money is. Chelsea Handler, the former host of E’s Chelsea Lately, is bringing her talent to Netflix, where award-winning shows such as House of Cards already live.

This case is a blow to Aereo. Its business plan is kaput, and copyright laws are getting a bit stricter. But the Internet is more than safe—it’s the future of TV.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate