Supreme Court Decision Cloudy At Best

Last week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that will decide if Aereo is allowed to continue operation in a dozen or so communities throughout the United States, including the Cincinnati area.  The fledgling internet based service allows subscribers to watch live local broadcast TV channels on a variety of digital devices like smart phones, tablets and lap tops, and yes, even TVs. It also offers a cloud-based DVR, allowing the subscriber to record programs for later streaming.

As the oral arguments and comments played out in the court room, it became apparent that the ruling might have far reaching and revolutionary implications, not only for how we receive television, but for the future of the multi-billion dollar cloud computing industry.

The issue being adjudicated is whether Aereo should be required to pay TV stations for the right to retransmit their programs.  Traditional cable and satellite services pay billions of dollars each year to local stations.  Aereo counters that they are not a cable system but rather just an agent of each subscriber providing an antenna and virtual DVR for a monthly fee. They note that individuals may watch and record in their home any program transmitted on public airwaves with no fee.  They insist that Aereo is just making this easier.

Much better legal minds will need to ascertain if Aereo is cleverly exploiting a loophole in the copyright laws or standing up for the little guy.  A review of the discussion during the court’s hearing shows that the Justices were quick to realize that their ruling could have great impact on other cloud-based services.

For several years we have all heard about the “cloud” and how it is revolutionizing the way we use our digital devices. Simply put the cloud services make use of large centrally located computer storage arrays and servers to provide to subscribers many services that once resided on our individual computers.  Because most of these cloud services allow subscribers to store and remotely access most any file or program for certain they are storing and playing out movies, music, pictures that are copyright protected.  The amount of illegal content stored on Dropbox or Google Cloud most likely is much greater than Aereo and a ruling against Aereo might well have a stifling effect on these cloud services.

We will need to all stay tuned to see if our highest court in the land can come up with a King Solomon ruling.  The Court is expected to rule in late June.

SOPA and PIPA Debate Ongoing

So what’s all the buzz about SOPA and PIPA? Well, it is not a new Disney flick featuring cute little fuzzy animated characters. Rather, SOPA - Stop Online Piracy Act and PIPA - Protect IP Act, are bills that were to be considered in the US House and Senate respectively. Both are aimed at preventing unauthorized sharing and use of published copyrighted material. Movie makers, music publishers and other providers of online content are increasingly concerned that anyone can copy what they’ve created and use and share the materials without paying. After a backlash from major online services the bills have been tabled for now, but the issue is far from resolved and remains the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

The argument that digital pirating is eroding profits and viability and, as such, is a major threat to their businesses is not a new concern. This new salvo has the support of some major players in the US economy like the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Walt Disney Company to name only a few. All contend that without this legislation serious damage to their bottom line will lead to significant reductions in the quantity and quality of movies, music and other programming.

Critics of these efforts to censor Internet providers like Google, Yahoo and Bing, whose search engines connect millions to content, and Wikipedia, whose collaborative encyclopedia has become a household word, argue that as written, SOPA and PIPA go much too far to censor what they do and in reality will have little effect on the problem.

The Internet companies have argued that SOPA and PIPA force them to be online police. The legislation holds them responsible if users of their sites link to pirated content. The companies said the bills could require your Internet provider to block websites that are involved in digital file sharing. All of this, they complain, is contrary to the very basic concept of an open Internet.

There is no question that we must find a way to make sure that copyrighted content is protected. Intellectual property like songs, books, photographs and art on the Internet must have the same protection as they do in the brick and mortar retail world. You can’t walk into Macy’s and help yourself to a shirt or pair of socks bypassing the cash register as you exit without the judicial consequences of stealing. You shouldn’t be able to download a book or piece of music that represents someone’s livelihood without paying for it.

Right now we need to strike a balance. It is one thing to go after people profiting from other’s work. It is another thing to try to close down YouTube because someone posted a video of a birthday party where a piece of copyrighted music was sung.