be.) 4' . 0? 1. unity" United States Copyright Of?ce Library offlongress - 101 Independence Avenue SE 2035943000 - {x 4-4 ?3 ., x: >15, .12 . .1870? By Email and First-Class Mail July 16, 2014 Mr. Matthew Calabro Aereo, Inc. 280 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Re: Section 111 Statement of Account Filings Dear Mr. alabro: Invoking the statutory license for secondary transmissions by cable systems in 17 U.S.C. 111, Aereo, Inc. (?Aereo?), has tendered to the US. Copyright Of?ce fourteen statements of account covering reporting periods from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013, along with associated royalty and ?ling fees totaling $5,310.74. In the view of the Copyright Of?ce, internet retransmissions of broadcast television fall outside the scope of the Section 111 license] Signi?cantly, in WPIX Inc. v. ivi, Inc, 691 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012), the Second Circuit deferred to and agreed with the Of?ce?s interpretation of Section 111. As explained in that case, Section 111 is meant to encompass ?localized retransmission services? that are ?regulated as cable systems by the Id. at 284 (quoting 57 Fed. Reg. 3284, 3292 (Jan. 29, 1992)). We do not see anything in the Supreme Court's recent decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014), that would alter this conclusion. According to established Copyright Of?ce practice, the Of?ce may accept Aereo?s SOA ?lings without comment; accept them provisionally, either taking no position or commenting upon any reservations we may have about the ?lings; or refuse the ?lings as not eligible under the compulsory license. See 53 Fed. Reg. 17962, 17963 (May 19, 1988). For the reasons discussed above, the Of?ce does not believe Aereo quali?es for the Section 11 1 statutory license, and will not process Aereo's filings at this time. 2 In recognition of the fact that Aereo has raised the I See. e. g, US. Copyright Of?ce, A Review ofthe Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission ofBroadcast Signals 91 ?99 (1997); Copyright Broadcast Programming on the Internet: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Comm. on the Judiciary. 106th Cong. 25-26 (2000) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register ofCopyrights). 3 Because Aereo does not appear to be eligible for the statutory license, the Of?ce does not at this time address other potential concerns about the adequacy ofAereo?s ?lings under Section 111. issue before the courts, however, the Of?ce will not refuse Aereo?s ?lings but will instead accept them on a provisional basis.3 Aereo should be aware that, depending upon further regulatory or judicial developments, and/or based upon the Of?ce?s own further review of the issue, the Of?ce may subsequently determine that it is appropriate to take de?nitive action on Aereo?s ?lings, which could include rejection of the statements. Sincerely, Jacqg?line C. Charlesworth General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights cc: Mr. Ramon Rivera, Aereo, Inc. 3 We also note the pe-ndenc-y of a proceeding before the Federal Communications Commission concerning whether internet?based services may be treated as ?multichannel video programming distributors? for purposes of communications law, the outcome of which could impact the analysis under Section 111, as Section 111 limits the statutory license to retransmission services that are ?permissible under the rules, regulations, or authorizations ef? the FCC. See Media Burma Seeks Comment on Interpretation off/16 Terms ?Multichannel Video Programming Distributor and "Channel As Raised in Pending Program. Access Complaint Proceeding, MB Docket No. 12?83, DA 12-507 (released Mar. 30, 2013), available at