WNET, THIRTEEN v. Aereo, Inc.: Antennas Jousting in and at Clouds, in the Eye of a Global Storm.

April 28, 2014

  1. WHAT IS IT?

Aereo, the service, allows people to watch re-transmitted television programming (live, or recorded by the customer as individualized copies) over the internet on compatible devices, and at their own time-shifted leisure.[1] This is accomplished through technical wizardry that allocates miniature antennae to each subscriber to link with Aereo’s cloud-based data servers, thereby serving every customer separately, but at once.[2]



The problem starts with the International Law of Copyright, which grants a bundle of exclusive rights[3] to the creators of certain artistic and literary works.[4] These include the rights to reproduction and public performance, and that is why creators of content get royalties, and broadcasters are paid for their signals (out of which they, in turn, also pay royalties). Most simply put, Aereo contends that:

(i) the recording of this formerly licensed content (an exception to Copyright when done for private usage) is the function that it facilitates; and

(ii) the later viewing of that content as recorded or time-shifted, as well as the original viewing of that content if not recorded or time-shifted, is (due to the antenna usage and individualized copies) a private performance for each customer so viewing it, being another exception to Copyright. As a result, they should not need to pay anyone for anything, and neither should their customers.

The broadcast networks as producers, creators, licensors and purveyors of copyrighted content disagreed (and still do) most vehemently with this, and characterized the Aereo business model in much of their verbal arguments and submissions to the courts at various levels, as nothing more than theft.



So far, the broadcasters tried to stop Aereo before it launched in 2012, suing for an injunction in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (as copyright is a matter of federal law). The Judge denied their injunction request.

“Because the Court concludes that it cannot accept Plaintiffs’ novel attempt to distinguish Cablevision, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. And although they have demonstrated that they face irreparable harm, they have not demonstrated that the balance of hardships decidedly tips in their favor. As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.”[5]

Then, the broadcasters appealed to a panel of three judges at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2d. Cir.). Two of those judges affirmed the ruling below in denying the injunction, but one of them dissented and took the side of the broadcasters.[6] In their opinion that favoured Aereo, the 2nd Circuit majority cited to their decision in Cartoon Network,[7] an earlier case, and focused-in on the “transmission” element of exclusive public performance rights.[8] As the Second Circuit majority wrote in finding there was no infringing public performance, there had been no intervening United States Supreme Court (U.S.S.C.) decision since Cablevision that would warrant ruling against an established and much relied-upon (especially by the Cloud industry) Appellate decision, and the Appellants could not provide sufficient reasons to depart from that Cablevision ruling in the Aereo case.[9]



In Cartoon Network, Cablevision Systems Corporation (CSC) proposed to start providing its customers with a remote storage, digital video recorder (RS-DVR) device, to which the plaintiffs took deep offence. As the plaintiffs complained:

On information and belief, Cablevision will provide the Service as follows: Cablevision will give Service subscribers the opportunity to request that Cablevision make a copy of programming. The request can be made either as the programming is airing or in advance of the airing time. Upon receiving such a request, Cablevision will make an unauthorized digital copy of that programming on one of its own servers, at the time the programming airs. (…) Cablevision will store the unauthorized copy on its servers for an indefinite period of time. On demand from a Service subscriber, Cablevision will transmit this stored programming to the subscriber in the same way as it transmits its On Demand service.”[10]

At this first instance, the federal District Court in the Southern District of New York agreed that the proposed service would cause a direct infringement of plaintiffs’ exclusive reproduction rights (17 U.S.C. §106(1), and the plaintiffs’ exclusive public performance rights (17 U.S.C. §106(4)).[11] Hence, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs and granted an injunction barring any unlicensed copying or public performance of plaintiffs’ copyrighted materials, and essentially, banning the service.[12] CSC promptly appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2d Cir.) reversed and remanded, vacating the injunction with a summary judgment, finding that the S.D.N.Y. had erred in reaching that conclusion.[13] However, the window for potential liability was not totally closed, as the Second Circuit wrote:

This holding, we must emphasize, does not generally permit content delivery networks to avoid all copyright liability by making copies of each item of content and associating one unique copy with each subscriber to the network, or by giving their subscribers the capacity to make their own individual copies. We do not address whether such a network operator would be able to escape any other form of copyright liability, such as liability for unauthorized reproductions or liability for contributory infringement.”[14] (emphasis added).

The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court (U.S.S.C.), but the Court denied Certiorari (which meant that it declined to hear the case). The fact that the U.S.S.C. has now decided to hear the Aereo case, which must be decided on a similar matter, shows that something may be changing in its thinking on Copyright, and/or the public interest in light of fast-moving technological developments.



The United States Supreme Court is expected to render a decision in or about June, 2014. After that, there is no higher court and nothing can be changed other than by an amendment of law by Congress. It is possible that Congress might act to change something before the Court rules. However, due to high demonstrated partisanship and a desire amongst the parties to see how the Supreme Court Judges think on the issues as they analyze the cases and facts, this is unlikely to happen within the next few months.


  1. WHO (as in which side) “SHOULD” WIN?

This is the kicker, because there are other prongs to consider if one performs a fuller horizon scan and “TOP” Analysis,[15] to look at the bigger picture. Let me focus on just three of these other prongs:

First, there is the public interest; second, there is technical pushback; and third, there is related law. I will address these in reverse order.


RELATED LAW (net neutrality) –

On this third prong, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has just announced a pending potential end to the doctrine of “Net Neutrality”. This doctrine, encompassed by 3 principles,[16] is the FCC commitment to “ensuring that every American has access to open and robust high-speed Internet service- or broadband”.[17] Ushering-in a new paradigm, the FCC has recently announced that it will circulate proposed rules to modify those rules. Before anyone had seen the proposed legislation, speculation began to spread that a two-tiered internet would result – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. The FCC moved swiftly to correct the record, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, stated inter alia, that: “[t]he allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the “commercially unreasonable” test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity.”[18]

If these proposed rules come into force, then marketing of faster internet services and service speeds for a fee, may become the order of the day. Aereo service (if sustainable under the law) could be marketed as a faster or slower alternative, as applicable, or it could still be slowed down and throttled into obscurity in its journey to those consumer Form Factors (phones, tablets, and computers) by ISPs who are weary of running afoul of that still potentially available “contributory infringement” liability left open by the Cablevision court.


THE GLOBAL STORM (more related law) –

The above are just some of the many possible results that may still come on the domestic scene. Then, of course, there is also the international dimension. Brazil has recently passed, in the lower house, an internet law the “Marco Civil” championing equal access (net neutrality), multiparty governance (no more U.S. hegemony), and certain other privacy protections for Brazilian citizens.[19] Consider also, that:

(i) On September 12, 2011, China, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan proposed an Internet Code of Conduct to the United Nations;[20]

(ii) On February 12, 2014, the European Commission put forth a proposal for democratizing the internet and ostensibly reducing the dominance of certain parties and practices, stating that: “[i]n the wake of large-scale Internet surveillance and reduced trust in the internet, the European Commission today proposes a key reform to the way the Internet is managed and run. The proposal calls for more transparent, accountable and inclusive governance”;[21]

(iii) The United States National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a federal government entity, announced on March 14, 2014, that it will withdraw from its leadership role in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as originally envisaged, but now also (and with certain caveats) “[t]o support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance;”[22] and

(iv) Going back to Brazil, the nation also recently hosted Net Mundial, an April 23-24, 2014 conference on the preferred future of the internet.[23]

Many of us have read or seen various “works of fiction” depicting alternative realities in a future where different jurisdictions and groups of jurisdictions have wildly different laws in the technology field, but all still manage to somehow, “almost” get along with the words “Free”, or “Neutral” in their names. Electronic conduct that is completely illegal in one, may be more permissible or even empowered by law in the other – consider mass surveillance as against mass and effective encryption; copyright infringement as against fair usage; differential download speeds (for a fee) as against one speed for all; and so forth. Any platform provider doing business in multiple such “Zones” may be moved to have, and provide, and support multiple devices for multiple such locations; or may in the alternative, be encouraged or compelled to have a single device with different functionalities either enabled or disabled by insertion of a chip-type device that is specific to each Zone, and the laws and mores of each Zone.

The seed for this is already here in phone “sim” cards. However and at the same time, we have seen how one person’s internet programming and/or oversight mistake can apparently endanger the entire system;[24] how some cybersecurity vulnerabilities may allegedly come pre-installed;[25] and how export restrictions and sanctions can starve persons and places of critical technologies.[26] As a result, once you take technology made by someone else, somewhere else, subject to the will of some other government(s) … you “are” in their debt for updates and support, and you “may also be” in their pocket!

Whatever the case and whichever way you look at it, something is building-up and the world is going somewhere that looks like that general “work of fiction” direction.

Will this be:

DOOR NUMBER ONE – A single internet with a unified governance system;

DOOR NUMBER TWO – Multiple internets with disparate rules and eBusinesses juggling to retain compliance due to their many governments and government groups “seeing RED” in arguing for:

(i) “R”egulatory sovereignty and “R”eal sovereignty (rules and regulations, and the right to react and redact in the face of social media free? speech created by foreign governments,[27] economically enabled from other jurisdictions, or owned by opaque/operated by irresponsible foreign entities,[28] as well as the right and capability to detect, detour-about, defuse, debunk and delete information warfare, manipulated media, and ruinous requisitioned reporting – a.k.a. censorship);

(ii) “E”lectronic sovereignty (payment systems, virtual currencies, financial transparency, and autonomy to engage in cybercrime countermeasures, and to develop and deploy (offensive), and detect and defend against (defensive) electronic warfare operations in, from, or to any one or any place in any way, and at any time); and

(iii) “D”ata sovereignty (data and personal privacy and the way and means in which it may be curtailed or canceled outright, data residence including the extraterritorial treatment of the data of its own Citizens, and assorted solo and coalition national security operations in the data domain); or –




On this second prong, content owners are already quite adept at Region Coding[29] on DVDs, to ensure that the content on them can only be accessed in those regions for which they have been specifically pre-programmed to work. It may now be technically possible to have:

(i) sub-codes for timed release (to prevent unfavourable time-shifting);

(ii) sub-codes for specific ISPs and phone telecommunications entities (to prevent cross-portability of content – although this may well defeat the purpose of “broadcast” by turning it into “limi-cast”, or run so afoul of some analogy on free number portability between carriers, or other laws and regulations, that it is unfeasible); or

(iii) some other digi-tag countermeasure.


PUBLIC INTEREST (sometimes subjective) –

On this first prong, we have a wildcard that nobody can predict. Is it more in the public interest to have content widely available, than it is to uphold a rigid reading of the law? Is it better to read the law loosely and protect fledgling domestic businesses like Aereo as well as U.S. global Cloud industry giants (based in the United States but under foreign and domestic suspicion after the Snowden revelations[30]), while allowing a perceived weakening of copyright protections? Will any of these three prongs be considered in a determination of whether the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner[31] will be in the public interest, or whether that proposed merger has any bearing on the Aereo case? Who can say?

I think that the public interest “should” win, but only the Court can decide what that public interest is, and on which side of the litigation it will finally fall. All of us, including the litigants, can only wait and see what and where that will be ………. and then Congress as a group can say yea or nay, or just let it be.



Ekundayo George is a sociologist and a lawyer. He has also taken courses in organizational and micro-organizational behavior, and has significant experienced in business law and counseling (incorporations, business plans, contracts and non-disclosure agreements, teaming and joint venture agreements), diverse litigation, and regulatory compliance practice. He is licensed to practice law in Ontario, Canada, as well as in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., in the United States of America (U.S. business advising, outsourcing and cross-border trade, technology contracts, and U.S. financing). See, for example: http://www.ogalaws.com. A writer, blogger, and avid reader, Mr. George has sector experience in Technology (Telecommunications, eCommerce, Outsourcing, Cloud), Financial Services, Healthcare, Entertainment, Real Estate and Zoning, International/cross-border trade, other Services, and Environmental Law and Policy. He is a published author on the National Security aspects of Environmental Law, has represented clients in courts and before regulatory bodies in both Canada and the United States, and he enjoys complex systems analysis in legal, technological, and societal milieux.

Mr. George is also an experienced negotiator, facilitator, team leader, and strategic consultant- sourcing, managing, and delivering on large, strategic projects with multiple stakeholders and multidisciplinary teams. Our competencies include program investigation, sub-contracted procurement of personnel and materiel, and such diverse project deliverables as business process re-engineering, devising and delivering tailored training, and other targeted engagements through a highly-credentialed resource pool with several hundred years of combined expertise, in: Healthcare; Education & Training; Law & Regulation; Policy & Plans; Statistics, Economics, & Evaluations including feasibility studies; Infrastructure; and Information Technology/Information Systems (IT/IS) – sometimes also termed Information Communications Technologies, or ICT). See, for example: http://www.simprime-ca.com.

Hyperlinks to external sites are provided to readers of this blog as a courtesy and convenience, only, and no warranty is made or responsibility assumed by either or both of George Law Offices and Strategic IMPRIME Consulting & Advisory, Inc. (“S’imprime-ça”) including employees, agents, directors, officers, successors & assigns, in whole or in part for their content, accuracy, or availability.

This article creates no lawyer-client relationship, and is not intended or deemed legal advice, business advice, the rendering any professional service, or attorney advertising where restricted or barred. The author and affiliated entities specifically disclaim and reject any and all loss claimed, no matter howsoever resulting as alleged, due to any action or inaction done in reliance on the contents herein.


[1] See Aereo. What is Aereo?   Visited April 24, 2014. Online: >http://support.aereo.com/customer/portal/articles/359733-what-is-aereo< For details on further proceedings in this case, see also Ekundayo George.  WNET THIRTEEN v. Aereo, Inc. – the United States Supreme Court (U.S.S.C.) Verdict.  Posted on ogalaws.wordpress.com, June 26, 2014.
Online: >https://ogalaws.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/wnet-thirteen-v-aereo-inc-the-united-states-supreme-court-u-s-s-c-verdict/<

[2] See Aereo. About. Visited April 24, 2014. Online: >https://aereo.com/about<

[3] Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII). U.S. Code: Title 17 – Copyrights. Online: >http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17<

17 U.S.C. §106 – Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


Government of Canada, Justice Laws Website. Copyright Act. Online: >http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/FullText.html<

Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) – Canada.


Copyright in works.

3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right

(a) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work,

(b) in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work,

(c) in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, to convert it into a dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise,

(d) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed,

(e) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work,

(f) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication,

(g) to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan,

(h) in the case of a computer program that can be reproduced in the ordinary course of its use, other than by a reproduction during its execution in conjunction with a machine, device or computer, to rent out the computer program,

(i) in the case of a musical work, to rent out a sound recording in which the work is embodied, and

(j) in the case of a work that is in the form of a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as that ownership has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of the copyright owner,

and to authorize any such acts.

[4] Copyright law is codified in the United States at 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. With a few distinctions, such as the definitions of works protected in different countries (e.g. “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression” in the United States and “literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (…) computer programs” in Canada), the law is quite uniformly applied through a number of treaties and conventions beyond the limited scope of this blog post. See also note 3, supra.

17 U.S.C. §102 – Subject matter of copyright: In general.

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

[5] See judgment of July 11, 2012, issued by the Honourable Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J., in WNET Thirteen et al. v. Aereo Inc.; American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al v. Aereo, Inc.,874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 11, 2012), at page 52. Online: >https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Denial%20of%20PI.pdf< In saying and citing “Cablevision”, the judge was referring to the 2nd Circuit’s 2008 “Cartoon Network” decision, infra at note 7 of this blog post.

[6] See WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc.; Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 12-2786-cv; 12-2807-cv (2d Cir. 2012), decided April 1, 2013. Dissenting opinion of The Honorable Denny Chin, Circuit Judge. Online:  >http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-2807/202356377/0.pdf< For substantially the same reasons, Judge Chin was also joined by Judge Richard C. Wesley, Circuit Judge, in dissenting to the denial of an en banc hearing on the appeal (by the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit). Online: > http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2dcd67b0-2b31-42d4-a190-1f09b735f5d2/2/doc/12-2786_12-2807_enbanc_complete.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2dcd67b0-2b31-42d4-a190-1f09b735f5d2/2/hilite/<

[7] The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 07-1480-cv(L) & 07-1511-cv(CON), 536 F. 3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008), decided August 4, 2008. Online: >https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/studios_v_cablevision/cablevision-decision.pdf<

[8] See Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII), supra note 3.

17 U.S.C. §101 – Definitions.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means-

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

See also supra note 1 and accompanying text. Aereo’s individual antennae (apparently) make the performances and re-performances private, thus technologically avoiding a “public” element needed for copyright infringement.

[9] WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc.; Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 12-2786-cv; 12-2807-cv (2d Cir. 2012), decided April 1, 2013, at note 19 of the ruling and accompanying text. Online: >https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/aereo_opinion.pdf< Cartoon Network and Cablevision are used interchangeably in this blog post.

[10] See ¶20 of original Complaint of The Cartoon Network LP. LLLP and Cable News Network LP, LLLP, filed May 26, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as 06-cv-4092. Online: >http://tipp.ucla.edu/documents/case50/Cartoon_Network%27s_Complaint.pdf

[11] See judgment of April 4, 2007, issued by The Honorable Denny Chin, U.S.D.J., in The Cartoon Network LP. LLLP et al v. CSC Holdings, Inc. et al, 06-cv-4092 and 06-cv-3990 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007), at paragraphs 4-5. Online: >http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2006cv04092/285045/62<

[12] Id. at paragraph 6. The full reasoning and opinion behind that S.D.N.Y. judgement, can also be found here: Online: >http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2006cv04092/285045/61<

[13] Supra note 6, Cartoon Network, at 44.

[14] Supra note 6, Cartoon Network, at 43-44.

[15] See Ekundayo George. “TOP” analysis: a timely successor to SWOT analysis? Published on ogalaws.wordpress.com, May 6, 2012. Online: >https://ogalaws.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/top-analysis-a-timely-successor-to-swot-analysis/<

[16] See United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Guide: The Open Internet. Online: >http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet<

The FCC and Open Internet Rules.

“There are three basic Open Internet rules:

1. Transparency: Broadband providers must disclose information regarding their network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of their broadband services;

2. No Blocking: Fixed broadband providers (such as DSL, cable modem or fixed wireless providers) may not block lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices. Mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services;

3. No Unreasonable Discrimination: Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. The no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination rules are subject to limited exceptions for “reasonable network management.””

[17] Id.

[18] Commissioner Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules. Published on fcc.gov, April 24, 2014. Online: >http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules<

[19] See Mike Palmedo. English Translation of the New Version of Brazil’s Marco Civil (courtesy of Carolina Rossini).  Posted on infojustice.org, November 18, 2013. Online: >http://infojustice.org/archives/31272< Please note that this early version shown is not exactly the same as the actual version recently passed.

[20] United Nations Organization (UN). Letter dated 12 September 2011 from the Permanent Representatives of China, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.  Sixty-sixth session Item 93 of the provisional agenda* Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security. A/66/359.  Dated September 14, 2011. Online: >http://content.netmundial.br/files/67.pdf<

[21] European Commission. Commission to pursue role as honest broker in future global negotiations on Internet Governance. Press Release published on europa.eu, February 14, 2014. Online: >http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm<

[22] National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions. Press Release posted on ntia.org, March 14, 2014. Online: >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions<

[23] RT. Brazil passes ‘internet constitution’ ahead of global conference on web future. Posted on rt.com, April 23, 2014.   Online: >http://rt.com/news/154168-brazil-internet-freedom-law-conference/<  See also >http://netmundial.org/<

[24] Robert Merkel. How the Heartbleed bug reveals a flaw in online security. Posted on theconversation.com, April 11, 2014. Online: >http://theconversation.com/how-the-heartbleed-bug-reveals-a-flaw-in-online-security-25536<

[25] Danielle Walker. Pre-installed security software leaves computers vulnerable to remote hijack, experts reveal.

Posted on scmagazine.com, February 12, 2014. Online: >http://www.scmagazine.com/pre-installed-security-software-leaves-computers-vulnerable-to-remote-hijack-experts-reveal/article/333808/< See also Lily Hay Newman. One More Reason to Stop Using Internet Explorer. Posted on slate.com, April 28, 2014. Online: >http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/28/internet_explorer_has_a_vulnerability_that_microsoft_admits_is_being_exploited.html<

[26] Staff Report. Iran sanctions main hurdle in gas pipeline. Published on dailytimes.com.pk, April 28, 2014. Online: >http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/business/11-Apr-2014/iran-sanctions-main-hurdle-in-gas-pipeline<  But see Srinivas Laxman. India overcame US sanctions to develop cryogenic engine. Posted on indiatimes.com, January 6, 2014. Online: >http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-overcame-US-sanctions-to-develop-cryogenic-engine/articleshow/28449360.cms<

[27] Desmond Butler, Jack Gillum, and Alberto Arce. US secretly created ‘Cuban Twitter’ to stir unrest. Posted on ap.org, April 4, 2014. Online: >http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-stir-unrest<

[28] Sometimes, the dealings of odd entities, nondescript government agencies, and extremely wealthy families and individuals, can be found to have occurred in well-known, but un-named and highly opaque (if not regulatorily impenetrable) “tax-advantaged” jurisdictions.

[29] Sony Corporation. What are DVD region codes? Available on us.en.kb.sony.com, last Updated: 01/07/2014. Online: >https://us.en.kb.sony.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/38063/~/what-are-the-dvd-region-codes%3F<

[30] Stephen Shankland. Snowden revelations spook Hightail’s cloud-computing customers. Published on cnet.com, December 11, 2013. Online: >http://www.cnet.com/news/snowden-revelations-spook-hightails-cloud-computing-customers/<

[31] Comcast. Time Warner Cable to Merge with Comcast Corporation to Create a World-Class Technology and Media Company. Press Release posted on comcast.com, February 13, 2014. Online: >http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/time-warner-cable-to-merge-with-comcast-corporation<

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: