Apple Inc v Pepper Case Brief Project

For this assignment, you will draft a case summary of a Supreme Court case.

You have to pick a case from this list:

Potential Cases

­

Madison v. Alabama (No. 17-7505): Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the execution of someone who does not remember committing the crime?

Apple Inc. v. Pepper (No. 17-204): Can purchasers of apps through Apple’s App Store sue Apple for allegedly having a monopoly on iPhone Apps?

Gamble v. United States (No. 17-646): Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibit the prosecution of the same offense if the defendant is prosecuted separately by the state, then the federal government?

Herrera v. Wyoming (No. 17-532): Did Wyoming’s statehood operate to repeal a treaty giving a Native American tribe the right to hunt on “unoccupied lands”?

Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas (No. 18-96): Does the Commerce Clause prohibit a state from imposing a two-year residency requirement before being able to obtain a retail liquor license?

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (No. 17-1717): Does the Establishment Clause prohibit the use of the Bladensburg Cross at a public cemetery dedicated to World War I veterans?

Department of Commerce v. New York (No. 18-966): Should the federal courts allow the Trump Administration to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census?

Mitchell v. Wisconsin (No. 18-6210): Does the Fourth Amendment allow the warrantless blood test from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect?

Case Name: American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461 (2014)
Factual History: For a monthly fee, Aereo provides its subscribers with broadcasted television
programs over the Internet. The programs, which are copyrighted, are made available to
subscribers at practically the same time as the program is being broadcast. Aereo does not own
the copyrights in its provided programming, nor does Aereo possess a license from the copyright
owners to perform the programs publicly. Aereo maintains that the data that is streamed to
subscribers is his or her own “personal copy.” Each copy is received by a particular antenna that
is assigned specifically to that subscriber only.
Procedural History: Owners of the copyrighted materials that Aereo is making available to
subscribers sued Aereo for copyright infringement in Federal District Court. Petitioners pursued
a preliminary injunction claiming Aereo infringed upon their legal right to perform works
publicly. The District Court denied the preliminary injunction and the Second Circuit affirmed.
The Second Circuit held that Aereo does not publicly perform as defined by the Transmit Clause
because Aereo does not transmit to the public. Instead, Aereo provides subscribers with a private
transmission that is available only to that specific subscriber. After the dissent of two judges, the
Second Circuit denied rehearing and certiorari was granted.
Issues Presented: Under the Copyright Act of 1976, does Aereo transmit a performance, and if
Aereo does “perform,” does it do so “publicly?”
Decision: Yes, Aereo transmits a performance and, yes, Aereo performs publicly.
Rules of the Law: A previously amended statute of the Copyright Act explains that to “perform”
means ‘to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.’”
Under this statute, both the broadcaster and the viewer of a program “performs.”
The Transmit Clause states that a performance is “public” when it “transmits a performance to
the public.” The Copyright Act clarifies that a performance is “public” when it “performs at any
place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social
acquaintances is gathered.” The Transmit Clause also explains that entities 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.”
Application of the Law: In this Case, Aereo argued that the subscribers, not Aereo, transmit the
performance. Aereo stated that its system remains inactive until a subscriber attempts to watch
the program. Only then is Aereo’s antenna activated to transmit the program. However, because
Aereo was able to choose what programs to make available to viewers, Aereo is made similar to
general cable companies. The Court was convinced that although a user’s involvement in the
selection of content may decide whether or not the provider performs according to the Copyright
Act, the similarities between Aereo and general cable companies are not critical. The Court
concluded that Aereo did not just supply equipment for broadcasting, but rather performed the
copyrighted works.
Aereo also argued that their transmissions were not public. Aereo maintained that only one
subscriber had access to see and hear each program. Each subscriber was given private access
and a personal copy of the transmission. Because of this, Aereo believed their transmissions were
not public. However, the Court found that while did Aereo transmit separate copies of the same
program, multiple, unrelated parties still view the same program. The Court concluded that
Aereo streams the same programs to various subscribers. Aereo’s many subscribers constitute
“the public.” The same images and sounds are transmitted to a large number of people at
different times and at different places.
Disposition: The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that Aereo performs, and does
so publicly, according to the terms of the Transmit Clause. The Court reversed the conflicting
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings with the
opinion.
Opinion: Before reading this case, I was not very familiar with the laws regarding Internet
streaming of television shows. Before reading the laws, I assumed that entities, such as Netflix,
were regarded in the same way as television networks.
I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that Aereo performed. I do not believe that by simply
transmitting a copy of a program to a subscriber, the entity performed. I believe in that situation
the viewers are the ones performing the action. Like the argument made for Aereo, I agree that
Aereo contrasts from cable companies. Cable companies transmit nonstop. In contrast, Aereo’s
system remains inactive until a subscriber prompts the programs to be transmitted.
However, I do agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that Aereo transmits publicly. Just as cable
companies make their programs available to anyone who may turn on the television, Aereo is
available to anyone who subscribes to the entity. Because of this, the programs Aereo makes
available are obtainable by the public.