Broadcasters Want Supreme Court To Review Aereo Ruling

Television broadcasters intend to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling from a lower court involving Aereo’s continued streaming of digital broadcast signals in the New York area, according to sources with knowledge of the case. October 15th is the deadline to file the petition. Broadcasters have achieved some court victories against another startup, FilmOnX, which provides a similar service. Meanwhile, Aereo announced its service will be available for Android devices later this month. Continue reading Broadcasters Want Supreme Court To Review Aereo Ruling

FilmOn: Broadcasters Score Big Against TV Streaming Service

Television broadcasters including Fox, NBCU, Disney/ABC, Allbritton Communications and Telemundo filed a copyright infringement suit in May against Alki David’s TV digital streaming service FilmOn X (formerly called BarryDriller), which works similarly to the controversial Aereo service, backed by Barry Diller’s IAC. On Thursday, a federal judge in Washington ruled in favor of the broadcasters, issuing a near-nationwide preliminary injunction against FilmOn X. Continue reading FilmOn: Broadcasters Score Big Against TV Streaming Service

Networks Continue Legal Battles with Broadcast Disruptors

Two recent legal cases are creating problems for broadcasters. A federal appeals court refused to rehear a case in which broadcasters attempted to shut down Aereo, a company that allows users to record broadcast TV online, and another appeals court declined a case to prevent Dish Network from selling its Hopper service, which allows viewers to bypass TV commercials. How broadcasters ultimately respond to the disrupters could have a major impact on television. Continue reading Networks Continue Legal Battles with Broadcast Disruptors

Fox Considering an Appeal to Supreme Court in Aereo Battle

On Tuesday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused TV broadcasters’ petition to appeal an earlier ruling that Internet-streaming startup Aereo is legal in New York City. The appeal came from Fox, CBS and others. Judges were polled and a majority did not want to rehear the case, although Judge Denny Chin called Aereo a “sham” and harmful to the TV industry. Fox Broadcasting is reviewing its options and may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Continue reading Fox Considering an Appeal to Supreme Court in Aereo Battle

Broadcasters File Appeal in Response to Aereo Decision

In an appeal that potentially raises the stakes regarding the future of television, broadcasters including Fox, PBS and Univision are asking a New York appeals court to reconsider its decision that allows Barry Diller-backed startup Aereo to retransmit over-the-air TV broadcasts to mobile devices. Earlier this month, we reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York had upheld a ruling in favor of Aereo. Continue reading Broadcasters File Appeal in Response to Aereo Decision

Court Copyright Ruling Continues in First Sale Tradition

The Sony Betamax videocassette recorder allowed consumers to record TV shows and view later, marking the first time content creators were significantly concerned about the pirating and/or redistribution of television. It was a major concern of Hollywood, since it posed a serious threat to revenue. After a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, the technology was allowed to survive, launching a series of decisions that still affect the market today. Continue reading Court Copyright Ruling Continues in First Sale Tradition

Supreme Court Rules it is Legal to Sell Imported Textbooks

The Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions last week that could have a significant impact on digital publishing and copyrighted products. The first ruling makes it potentially easier to import and sell textbooks from abroad, following a lawsuit involving a college student who was importing cheaper textbooks and selling them for a profit. The second decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs in class-action suits to stay out of federal court. Continue reading Supreme Court Rules it is Legal to Sell Imported Textbooks

Report: Is Innovation being Stifled by Frivolous Lawsuits of Patent Trolls?

  • Looking at a database of over 1,600 patent troll lawsuits compiled by Patent Freedom, a team of Boston University researchers estimate that these suits have cost companies some $500 billion since 1990. These costs include not only legal fees and payouts to plaintiffs, but indirect costs such as employee distraction, legal uncertainty, and the need to redesign or drop key products.
  • The authors of the study also estimate that the original inventors received less than 10 percent of the “defendant’s lost wealth.”
  • Additionally, they found that software patents accounted for approximately 62 percent of the lawsuits (while a mere two percent of suits were related to drug or chemical patents, and only six percent involved mechanical patents).
  • The article concludes that the patent system is becoming a disincentive to innovation. “These results are important because the patent system is supposed to reward companies who invest in innovation,” suggests Ars Technica. “Yet thanks to the growing blizzard of frivolous patent lawsuits against technology companies, the patent system is actually becoming a net disincentive to innovation, especially software. We hope Congress and the Supreme Court are paying attention.”

Law Professors Argue that Protect IP Act is Unconstitutional

  • Some 90 law professors have signed a joint letter opposing the Protect IP Act which is intended to deal with copyright infringement. The Act is currently being reviewed by Congress.
  • The letter contends that the Act’s domain-blocking provisions can be viewed as Internet censorship, which is barred by the First Amendment.
  • “The Act would allow courts to order any Internet service to stop recognizing [a] site even on a temporary restraining order… issued the same day the complaint is filed” without allowing for an adversary proceeding, which has been required by the Supreme Court.
  • Moreover, blocking an entire domain when infringing material exists in a subdomain is equivalent to “burning the house to roast the pig.”

Gaming Industry Wins in Supreme Court Battle over Violent Content

  • In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a controversial 2005 California law, which would have made it a crime to sell extremely violent or inappropriate video games to minors, is unconstitutional.
  • The decision ends a court battle that has gone on for more than six years, while similar proposed laws have been struck down in other states.
  • Justice Antonin Scalia explained the law does not conform with the First Amendment: “The basic principles of freedom of speech…do not vary with a new and different communication medium.”