("ivi") and its Chief -2- Executive Officer, Todd Weaver, for streaming plaintiffs' copyrighted television programming over the Internet live and without their consent. CHIN, Circuit Judge: In this case, plaintiffs-appellees - producers and owners of copyrighted television programming - sued defendants-appellants ivi, Inc. ![]() Bierman, on the brief), Black Lowe & Graham PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for DefendantsAppellants. Reeves Anderson, on the brief), Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, New York, and Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellees. ![]() a company that streams television programming live and over the Internet - is not a "cable system" under § 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.) granting plaintiffs-appellees' motion for a preliminary injunction and holding that defendant-appellant ivi, Inc. Before: WINTER, CHIN, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. IVI, INC., AND TODD WEAVER, Defendants-Appellants. 11-788-cv WPIX, INC., WNET.ORG, AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., CBS BROADCASTING INC., CBS STUDIOS, INC., THE CW TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., NBC UNIVERSAL, INC., NBC STUDIOS, INC., UNIVERSAL NETWORK TELEVISION, LLC, TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP, LLC, NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., COX MEDIA GROUP, INC., FISHER BROADCASTING-SEATTLE TV, L.L.C., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., TRIBUNE TELEVISION HOLDINGS, INC., TRIBUNE TELEVISION NORTHWEST, INC., UNIVISION TELEVISION GROUP, INC., THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TELEFUTURA NETWORK, WGBH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, THIRTEEN, AND PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ![]() ivi UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2011 (Argued: Decided: August 27, 2012) Docket No. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm in balancing the hardships and considering the public interest.ġ1-788-cv WPIX v. 111 (2) the statute's legislative history, development, and purpose indicated that Congress did not intend for section 111 licenses to extend to Internet retransmissions (3) the Copyright Office's interpretation of section 111 - that Internet retransmissions services did not constitute cable systems under section 111 - aligned with Congress' intent and was reasonable and (4) accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case. The court, applying Chevron analysis, held that: (1) the statutory text was ambiguous as to whether defendant, a service that retransmitted television programming over the Internet, was entitled to a compulsory license under section 111 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Plaintiffs, producers and owners of copyrighted television programming, sued defendants for streaming plaintiffs' copyrighted television programming over the Internet live and without their consent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |