US Supreme Court Hears Argument that Might Hurt Cloud Storage

23 April 2014 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

During a hearing in a copyright infringement case about TV programs the alleged infringer’s attorney argued that the “cloud computing industry is freaked out about this case” and that a ruling against Aereo would expose the “the cloud industry” to “potentially ruinous liability” as reported by the New York Times.

However can the Supreme Court really understand the cloud?  “The Aereo case is being decided by people who call iCloud ‘the iCloud.’ Yes, really” was a Washington Post blog which poked fun at the Supreme Court Justices that they did not really have a clue about the technology in dispute.

Computerworld reported that Aereo’s position before the Supreme Court that:

Aereo does not trigger the so-called public performance clause in U.S. copyright law, and should not have to pay royalties, because it gives subscribers access only to TV stations that are available over the air for free.

While copyright law requires royalties for public performances, defined as a performance “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,” Aereo provides a personalized service to each subscriber.

However Computerworld described the TV networks response that:

…the Supreme Court doesn’t need to deal with cloud storage services in the case. A cloud storage service is different from Aereo because users are providing content they’ve obtained, while Aereo gives subscribers access to content…

The New York Times also reported that:

Malcolm L. Stewart, a deputy solicitor general, argued in support of the broadcasters on behalf of the federal government. He acknowledged that cloud services that store and perhaps aggregate content were in some ways similar and posed difficult questions under the copyright laws.

Based on comments during the argument from the Justices they said they understood the far-reaching implications of the ruling in Aereo case, but really do they understand?

Now the cloud community awaits the ruling

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services