Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judge Sides with Dish on Copyright Claims by Fox over Ad-Skipping Service
Dish Network LLC came out ahead in an important early test of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in American Broadcasting Cos. Inc. v. Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2104), largely escaping Fox Broadcasting Co.'s copyright claims over technology that records network television and replays it commercial-free. District Judge Dolly Gee, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sided largely with Dish and its lawyers, led by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's Peter Bicks and Annette Hurst, on copyright and breach of contract claims that Fox lodged against the satellite TV provider. The district judge released a sealed version of the decision just days before the two sides agreed to stay the case ahead of a potential settlement. Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network LLC, 12-4529.
In the lawsuit, Fox and its lawyers at Jenner & Block, led by partner David Singer, challenged Dish's Hopper set-top box and DVR, as well as its “PrimeTime Anytime” and “AutoHop” products. The services allow customers to digitally record prime-time programming on the major networks and replay those shows later while skipping commercials.
District Judge Gee's decision granted Dish's motion for summary judgment on several key copyright issues in the suit, and concluded that the satellite TV company's “PrimeTime Anytime” and the “AutoHop” ad-skipping services don't run afoul of federal copyright law. “Dish does not directly or secondarily infringe Fox's right of reproduction, distribution, or public performance by offering [PrimeTime Anytime] to its subscribers,” the judge wrote. “The linchpin in the copyright infringement analysis is whether Dish infringed Fox's exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. AutoHop neither copies nor distributes anything ' it skips ads.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.