Here is a link to a law review piece (student comment) that synthesizes all of the cases that we talked about in class today–Sony (Betamax); Napster and Groskster; and Aereo. It also discusses another pair of cases in depth, the Dish Network cases.

The student comment explains each of these cases, and ultimately reminds the reader that although many have called the Aereo decision “the new Sony Betamax case,” the issue is not so easily distilled. (comment at 516). Rather: “In Aereo, the main issue is whether the copyright infringement derives from a violation of the right to publicly perform, while in Sony or the Dish cases, the infringement derived from a violation of the reproduction right.” (Id. at 517).

Overall, I found this student comment to be informative, and I enjoyed learning about the Dish case as well. (The Dish case(s) related to Dish Network’s DVR system and its ad-skipping feature of this DVR system.) It walks the reader through our cases in a historical way, tying them all together. The piece asserts that litigation that stifles innovation in order to maintain the status quo will hinder the “growth and development efforts in the future.” (Id. at 520). This seems to comport with Professor McKenna’s general theory that decisions such as Aereo can have far-reaching impacts on the development of better technology.