What is a copyright infringement?

What are the ramifications if an act is deemed a direct versus an indirect infringement, as it relates to copyright rights?

• In the recent Aereo ruling, it seems the majority and minority agree there is infringement. However, the minority opinion seems to believe the infringement is indirect. Scalia argues the Aereo ruling now makes that distinction unclear. From a practical perspective, what is the business impact if an act is ruled an indirect rather than a direct infringement?

• Answer:

  From a practical perspective, there is no difference:  a finding of infringement, whether direct or indirect, is going to result in damages and/or injunctive relief against the infringer.  At the pleading/proof stages of the case, there are distinct bodies of law that have developed as to how one infringes and what is/is not acceptable, and I think the dissent's concern is that Aereo has the potential to muddy that precedent. The big issue, as the Scalia dissent points out, is that the majority in Aereo appears to be relying on something of an "eye test" when it comes to infringement, i.e., "we know that we got smacked down in the 1970s because of how we defined performance when it came to cable TV, and this looks way too much like cable TV for us to be comfortable."  This may be the correct result, but there is not a great deal of guidance that comes out of the majority opinion as to how lower courts are to interpret the Copyright Act as applied to digital media.  As I mentioned elsewhere, we're probably going to wind up with several copyright cases over the next few years that try to work through digital issues because Aereo is not particularly helpfulThis answer is not a substitute for professional legal advice....