Whether Aereo’s Transmissions to Individual Subscribers is “Public”?

Strategic Issues and Problems
According to the case, Hearst is appealing that its competitor Aereo poses a threat to over-the-air broadcast services by using contrived technology to free-ride on WCVB’s substantial investment in its copyrighted programming. At the first of glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that Hearst’s appealing is not consolidating as it stands. There is no solid evidence that can proof the current strategy of Aereo using is unlawfully distributing its signal.

Evaluation and Analysis
The essence of the conflict between Aereo and Hearst is whether Aereo infringes copyright by publicly performing television shows without a license. Hearst sued that Aereo retransmits performances of copyrighted programs to members of the public through internet and mobile device streaming which infringes Hearst’s copyrighted programming. Consequently, Hearst will be deprived of existing and potential revenue streams from advertising and authorized retransmissions. On the other hand, Aereo argued that its streams are not “public” performance, because Aereo captures the content from the airwaves through thousands of tiny antennas in local warehouse. In addition, Aereo doesn’t transmit anything but it is instead their subscribers who are doing it. Therefore the transmissions are not public performances and so do not infringe Hearst’s copyrights.

Alternatives
Hearst argues that all streams used by Aereo are “public” performances which would violate the copyright law. Therefore Hearst is facing the potential loss of retransmission revenue. One solution for this issue would be giving profit shares to Hearst for all over-the-air TV programs being recorded by Aereo, so there is no harm on both sides. But it will definitely hurt revenue earned