Skip to content Skip to main menu
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Academic Rules
    • View Evaluations
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
    • RoloLaw
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff
    • COVID-19 Information

    Support

    • Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Faculty Support Unit
    • Berkeley Law Events
    • Business Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Building Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Information
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    For Students

    • Dean of Students Office
    • Academic Policies
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
    • Inclusive Restrooms
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

UC Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Criminal Justice
      • Environment and Energy
      • Human Rights
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • Past LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendars
          • 2023 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2022 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2021 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2020 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2019 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2018 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • LL.M. Executive Track Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Steps to Apply
        • Application Forms & Deadlines
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Checklist
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Ways to Fund Your Studies
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing Resources
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admission
          • Steps to Apply
          • Application Form & Deadline
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Checklist
          • Check Application Status
        • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
          • Cost of Attendance for JSD
          • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • Events Calendar »
    • Certificates & Honors
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • One Year Curriculum Planner
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2024-2025 Academic Calendar
      • 2025 LL.M. Executive Track Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2023-2024 Academic Calendar
        • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
        • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
      • Future Academic Calendars
        • 2025-2026 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
          • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony – Who’s Coming
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • Transfer & Visiting Student Applicants
        • Pre-Law Preparatory Academy
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Plan Your Visit
        • Virtual Engagement
        • Recruitment Events
        • Law Building Tour
        • View the Prospectus
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Studying at Berkeley Law
      • Living in the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
          • Native American Opportunity Plan
          • Financial Aid for Active Military and Veteran J.D. Students
          • Resources For Bar Related Expenses
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
        • Tuition & Fees
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • Forms
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • LRAP & PSLF Testimonials
          • LRAP FAQs
        • Satisfactory Academic Progress
        • Withdrawals and Financial Aid
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty on Social Media
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Guess Who’s Coming to Jury Duty?: How the Failure to Collect Juror Demographic Data Contributes to Whitewashing the Jury Box
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • Lawsuit Filed Over Radioactive Waste at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
      • Global Rights Innovation Lab Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
      • Human Rights Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Featured Reports and Projects
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
          • Georgia Valentine
        • Clinic News
        • Resources and Publications
        • Juvenile Fees
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
          • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
        • Adult Fees
          • Ending Unjust and Ineffective Criminal Fees in California
        • Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
        • Access Reports
      • Social Enterprise Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How to Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • Business Community Legal Advice Workshop
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Climate Migration & Displacement Project
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Family Defense Project
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Queer Justice Project
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Community Defense Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Alaska
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawai’i
          • Kentucky
          • Mississippi
          • Montana
          • U.S./Mexico Border
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • IRAP Project
        • David Nahmias
        • Angélica César & Mackenzie Gettel
        • Skylar Cushing
        • Addie Gilson & Eli McClintock-Shapiro
        • Tori Porell, Supervising Attorney FosterEd
        • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization (DECrim) Project
        • Caity Lynch, JD ’25
        • Berkeley Immigration Group SLP Supervising Attorneys
        • Family Defense Project
        • Gabby Cirelli, JD ’24
        • Brooke D’Amore Bradley, JD ’23
        • Taiya Tkachuk, ’24
        • Emily Chuah ’24
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
    • Advocacy Competitions Program
      • Eligibility by Class Year
      • Internal Competitions
        • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • 2025 McBaine Competition
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court Competition 2024 Photo Essay
          • Previous Years’ McBaine Competitions
          • Past McBaine Winners
          • McBaine — Frequently Asked Questions
          • Helpful Materials
        • Halloum Negotiation Competition (Spring)
          • Competition FAQ
          • Previous Winners
        • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
        • Bales Trial Competition
      • External Competitions (BOA)
        • BOA Tryouts
        • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
        • Moot Court Team
        • Tech & IP Team
        • Trial Team
      • Competition Videos
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • How to Apply
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • Administrative Rules
      • Frequently Asked Questions
      • Field Placement Program Evaluation Database
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Ninth Circuit Practicum
    • Domestic Violence & Gender-Based Violence Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • History & Impact
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • CDO Email Archive
      • Appointments and Drop-In Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • How to Apply to Private Sector Jobs
          • 2L Summer Private Sector Job Search
          • OCI Alternatives
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
          • Public Interest/Public Sector Employer Events & Resources
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Your 2L and 3L PIPS Job Search
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • PI/PS Job Search Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions & Resources
        • Alumni Clerkship & Judicial Staff Directory
        • Clerkship Yearbooks
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
      • Judicial Externships
      • OCI Programs
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • OCI Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • Executive Education
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Help the CDO
    • Careers in Law Teaching
      • Alumni Faculty Directory
      • Videos of Academic Placement Committee Programs
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
  1. Home
  2. Articles
  3. News
  4. Op-Eds – ARCHIVAL
  5. Symposium: Aereo, disruptive technology, and statutory interpretation

Symposium: Aereo, disruptive technology, and statutory interpretation

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on Bluesky
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article

By Peter Menell and David Nimmer, Scotus Blog

American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., presented two fundamental showdowns:  one between the cable industry and a charismatic disruptive technology and the other between textualists and jurists seeking to vindicate legislative intent.  Much of the media attention surrounding the case focused on the former.  But it was the latter that proved decisive, and rightfully so.

Under our Constitution, Congress has primacy in enacting laws, and the judiciary plays a critical role interpreting those laws.  Copyright law poses a particular interpretive challenge in that it comprises a mix of statutory provisions and court-developed doctrines.  The interpretive challenge is compounded by the relentless emergence of new technologies.  In some cases, such as online service providers, Congress has augmented the Copyright Act to accommodate technological change.  In others, courts must apply older statutory provisions to new technologies.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Aereo grounds its decision in a respectful, balanced effort to vindicate Congress’s legislative intent in crafting copyright’s public performance right.  As chronicled in our brief, the emergence of the cable industry in the mid- 1960s exerted a profound influence on copyright history and the drafting of the Copyright Act of 1976.  What might well have been the Copyright Act of 1966 was derailed by an impasse over community antenna television (CATV).  The Supreme Court grappled with the applicability of the Copyright Act of 1909 to CATV in two controversial decisions – Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., and Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. – holding that such services did not violate the 1909 Copyright Act.

By 1976, the number of cable systems had grown to over three thousand systems servicing over ten million homes throughout the United States.   In legislatively overturning Fortnightly and Teleprompter, Congress noted that “cable systems are commercial enterprises whose basic retransmission operations are based on the carriage of copyrighted program material and that copyright royalties should be paid by cable operators to the creators of such programs.”  As a compromise responding to the impracticality of requiring every cable system to negotiate with every copyright owner whose work was retransmitted, Congress crafted a compulsory license for the retransmission of over-the-air broadcasts.

Aereo sought to circumvent that regime through what Judge Denny Chin below characterized as a “Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, over-engineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act.” (Chin, J., dissenting).   Writing for the majority yesterday, Justice Breyer looked to the detailed text of the Copyright Act of 1976 as well as its broader purposes and the circumstances surrounding its passage in ruling that Aereo violates copyright’s public performance right.

In applying the Copyright Act’s provisions to Aereo’s miniature antenna/DVR farms, the Supreme Court’s majority gave due regard to the momentous compromise over cable television reflected in Copyright Act of 1976.

Congress enacted new language that erased the Court’s [Fortnightly/ Teleprompter] line between broadcaster and viewer, in respect to ‘perform[ing]’ a work. The amended statute clarifies that to ‘perform’ an audiovisual work means ‘to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.’  §101. . . .  Under this new language, both the broadcaster and the viewer of a television program “perform,” because they both show the program’s images and make audible the program’s sounds.  See H. R. Rep., at 63 (“[A] broadcasting network is per-forming when it transmits [a singer’s performance of a song] . . . and any individual is performing whenever he or she . . . communicates the performance by turning on a receiving set”).

The opinion notes the breadth of the Transmit Clause, emphasizing how it was crafted to cover the CATV systems at issue in Fortnightly and Teleprompter.   The creation of the Section 111 compulsory license completed the statutory regime by opening a balanced, low-transaction-cost pathway for cable television systems to operate within the scope of the Copyright Act.

The majority applied a functional lens to vindicate Congress’s intent in crafting what constitutes a public performance, concluding that the legislative “history makes clear that Aereo is not simply an equipment provider [but r]ather ‘performs[s]’ (or transmit[s]’)” copyrighted works.  The majority opinion parsed the broad language of the Transmit Clause – expressly providing that an entity may perform publicly “whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance . . . receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times” – in concluding that “Aereo ‘perform[s]’ petitioners’ copyrighted works ‘publicly,’ as those terms are defined by the Transmit Clause.”

Justice Scalia’s dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, is remarkable in its reliance upon a non-textual doctrine:  that copyright infringement can only occur through volitional conduct.  Although that doctrine had been invoked in several lower court decisions, the Supreme Court has never adopted it.  The doctrine traces its roots to Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., a pre-DMCA Internet case holding that, “[a]lthough copyright is a strict liability statute, there should still be some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant’s system is merely used to create a copy by a third party.”  Although early drafts of the DMCA online service provider safe harbor (Section 512) provision would have codified the volition doctrine, the ultimate statutory formulation took a different path.

It is surprising to see Justice Scalia putting so much emphasis on a non-textual doctrine, especially when there is so much text to chew on.  His suggestion that the volition requirement “is firmly grounded in the Act’s text, which defines ‘perform’ in active, affirmative terms” reveals the “eye of the beholder” quality behind his textualist jurisprudence.  His analysis overlooks the broad statutory definition of “perform” as well as the detailed text of Section 111, which channels those retransmitting over-the-air broadcast signals into a compulsory license regime.  He is not even willing to engage the statute’s Transmit Clause.  The dissent’s analogy between a copy shop that rents out photocopiers and Aereo’s service rings hollow, especially in view of Congress’s clear intention to channel retransmission services into the detailed statutory regime.

Based on active questioning at oral argument about potential ramifications for other Internet services, many commentators speculated that the Supreme Court would focus on the effects of its ruling on cloud-based services.  Aereo’s response had been to deflect attention from the legislative intention in crafting the Transmit Clause by raising the specter that holding it liable could trigger a parade of horribles for other cloud technologies.  The majority opinion wisely steered clear of addressing technologies and services that were not before it.

Does this decision vindicate optimal public policy for the Internet Age?  Such a determination would require assessing how consumer demand for entertainment goods and distribution services can most effectively be satisfied in a technologically dynamic marketplace, along with the effects of alternative regimes on the quality and quantity of audiovisual works – complex inquiries that lie beyond the competence of courts to evaluate.

The Constitution appropriately puts Congress in the driver’s seat in assessing these policy matters.   But as we have witnessed time and time again, Congress faces tremendous structural constraints in updating copyright law.  It took nearly two decades for the Copyright Act of 1976 to emerge, with the battle over cable television proving to be the largest stumbling block.  That is why it was so difficult for the Supreme Court to ignore the legislative history in addressing Aereo’s efforts to circumvent the Copyright Act’s public performance right.

Yet no one should be entirely satisfied with where the Supreme Court’s resolution of this case leaves the larger policy determination.  The Copyright Act of 1976 is indeed creaky.  While its drafters enunciated purposes and principles that have guided the evolution of copyright protection, we are nearly half a century beyond those drafting choices.  Thus, while we commend the Supreme Court’s faithful execution of its Constitutional role, we nonetheless believe that the time is ripe to consider how best to reform the Copyright Act for the current technological age.  The Supreme Court’s appropriate respect for Congress’s 1976 legislative choices should not be seen as magically achieving the best regime today for serving the insatiable demand for Internet access to copyrighted works.  Market forces have responded to that demand – as reflected in the growing range of services – but as Aereo’s rapid growth has shown, there are reasons to believe that Congress should carefully review the availability of over-the-air signals in the Internet Age.  Aereo highlights the need to open up better ways of channeling creators and consumers into well-functioning markets for content – just as the compulsory license for cable retransmission accomplished nearly forty years ago. 

06/26/2014

News

  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2025 Archive
    • 2024 Archive
    • 2023 Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Media Release Form
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
  • Law School Images »
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • TikTok
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Relay 711
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2025 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.