Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV

Last updated
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV
Pennsylvania-western.gif
Court United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Full case nameTwentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, et al., v. iCraveTV, et al.
DecidedFebruary 8, 2000
Docket nos.2:00-cv-00120; 2:00-cv-00121
Citation(s)2000 WL 255989; 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1831
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Donald Emil Ziegler
Keywords
Copyright Trademark

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989 (W.D. Pa. 2000), was a court case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which enjoined iCraveTV, a Canadian TV streaming website, from operating within the US after finding it in violation of 20th Century Fox's, and several other motion picture studios and television networks, copyrights and trademarks. Granted February 8, 2000, this injunction, along with continued legal pressure, led to the iCraveTV's demise just 3 months after its debut. As of March 28, 2019, the library is included due to Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox.

Contents

Background

iCraveTV allowed users to stream network television directly through their personal computers via the internet. Broadcasts of 17 networks from Buffalo, NY and Toronto, Canada were picked up via a rooftop antennae in Toronto, turned into a retransmission signal, digitized, and then streamed online through the use of RealPlayer software at iCraveTV.com. [1] The website was free for end-users however iCraveTV sold advertising spots to American and Canadian Companies. It displayed these advertisements alongside the streamed original content. The website launched quietly on November 30, 1999, but grew rapidly; in December 2000 it had 800,000 unique visits and played 60 million instances of users being exposed to 30 second advertisements. [2]

Under Canada's Broadcasting Act retransmission of broadcast signals in this manner is legal within Canada. [3] Because this retransmission is not necessarily legal in other countries, iCraveTV restricted use of its site to Canadian residents. Upon first visit to the site, users had to enter their 3 digit Canadian area code, verify that they were in Canada by clicking a box that said "I'm in Canada", and agree to the terms of use. [4] International users, however, were easily able to bypass these restrictions and made up 45% of the traffic to the website. [1]

Positions Held in Court

The plaintiffs in this case included several sports leagues, motion picture studios, and television networks, such as the National Football League, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and the American Broadcasting Company. Plaintiffs contended that iCraveTV had copied and displayed several of their copyrighted works without their permission and that the site was too easily accessible within the US. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent iCraveTV from displaying works in the US based on violation of the US Copyright and Lanham (Trademark) Acts.

iCraveTV representatives did not deny that they had copied copyrighted works, represented themselves as the authors, or publicly performed said works; rather they argued that their actions were legal in Canada, and that they did not intend for US residents to view the works on their site. Despite this argument, based on the precedent set in Williams Elecs., Inc. v. Attic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 878 [215 USPQ 405] (3d Cir.1982) injunctions may be issued without proving willful or deliberate infringement. [1]

Regardless of where the broadcast originates, the Copyright Act gives jurisdiction to the district courts when the acts of infringement are committed within the US. In this case streaming constitutes an unauthorized public performance, which is a violation of the plaintiffs' rights as copyright owners. [5] Public performance was proven by an examination of the Real Video server log showing that 45% of iCraveTV's traffic came from IP addresses within the United States. Additionally, plaintiffs presented testimony and sworn affidavits establishing that the Pennsylvania residents had accessed iCraveTV's website. [1]

Opinions of the Court

The court found that iCraveTV had directly and willingly infringed upon the rights of the plaintiffs under 17 U.S.C § 106 by making unauthorized copies of, preparing derivative works of (by removing subtitle data), and publicly displaying copyrighted works throughout the US. iCraveTV was also found to be liable for contributory infringement of the same works by knowingly and materially contributing to infringement by its users within the US.

iCraveTV was found to be in violation of the Lanham Act by portraying itself as legitimate telecasters endorsed by the plaintiffs, and falsely stating that they owned copyrights on the streamed content. Additionally, iCraveTV violated the plaintiffs rights under the Lanham Act by infringing upon and diluting they trademarks with the intent of leveraging the plaintiffs reputation and goodwill. [2]

Under the common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, iCraveTV was also found to have participated in unfair competition and civil conspiracy that would irreparably harm the plaintiffs without an injunction. [2]

On January 1, 2000, the court granted the Plaintiff's a temporary restraining order which enjoined iCraveTV from infringing upon the plaintiff's copyrights, trademarks, and trade names through any means including, but not limited to, online streaming.

Subsequent Developments

Rather than returning to court as dictated by the preliminary injunction ruling, iCraveTV and representatives of the motion picture, television, and professional sports industries came to an out-of-court settlement agreement. [6] The agreement stated that iCraveTV would no longer engage in illegal streaming of television signals into the US through the Internet. [6] The settlement also prohibited iCraveTV from seeking (or helping anyone else seek) a ruling on the legality of their form of Internet broadcasting in Canada. [7] In addition, the settlement required iCraveTV to withdraw a petition it made to Canada's Copyright Board asking for a suggestion on how much iCraveTV should be paying to fulfill the same copyright responsibilities met by other rebroadcasters. [7] Following the settlement, iCraveTV Chief Executive Bill Craig agreed to shut down the site.

In September 2010, Seattle-based company ivi launched a similar service as iCraveTV for watching television online at a flat monthly fee. [8] When a group of broadcaster and copyright holders filed copyright infringement claims against ivi that same month in WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., ivi argued that since the company simply retransmits unaltered content meant for the public, it meets the requirements necessary for the "passive carrier exemption" from copyright liability. [9] Unlike iCraveTV, ivi did not frame its retransmission in advertising, an act which could arguably be considered a modification of the original content. [9] In February 2011 the district court rejected ivi's argument, ruling that ivi's service did constitute copyright infringement and demanding the service shut down. In August 2012, an appeals court affirmed the decision. [10]

In September 2013, graduate student Benjamin Klass filed a net neutrality complaint against Bell Mobility with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for its treatment of online video services. [11] In response to this complaint, the CRTC sent a series of questions to Bell to investigate the issue. Canadian academic Michael Geist argues that these questions demonstrate the existence of an iCraveTV legal framework. [12] Per this framework, services can protect themselves from prosecution by claiming either the retransmission provision of Canada's Copyright Act or the CRTC's new media exception order; they cannot claim both. [12]

Related Research Articles

iCraveTV was a Canadian website, which operated from 1999 to 2000. The site offered streaming Internet broadcasts of the conventional television stations, both Canadian and American, that were available as over-the-air signals in Toronto.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

isoHunt Torrent index site closed 2013

isoHunt was an online torrent files index and repository, where visitors could browse, search, download or upload torrents of various digital content of mostly entertainment nature. The website was taken down in October 2013 as a result of a legal action from the MPAA; by the end of October 2013 however, two sites with content presumably mirrored from isohunt.com were reported in media. One of them – isohunt.to – became a de facto replacement of the original site. It is not associated in any way with the old staff or owners of the site, and is to be understood as a separate continuation.

<i>Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.</i> Legal case

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, was a United States district court decision on the subject of deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisements. It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow, a maker of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS when people viewed the company's web site, were "inherently deceptive" and that one of the advertisements "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aereo</span> Technology company

Aereo was a technology company based in New York City that allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices. The service opened to customers in March 2012, and was backed by Barry Diller's IAC.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.</i> American legal case

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., was a copyright infringement case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant an injunction for the plaintiffs, barring ivi, Inc. from broadcasting television programming over the Internet. This decision set a precedent that broadcast television material can be protected by copyright and cannot be re-transmitted on the Internet without permission.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

Rightscorp. Inc is a Los-Angeles based copyright enforcement company, which locates alleged copyright violators and collects money from legal damages as well as out of court settlements on behalf of the copyright holder(s). Rightscorp manages copyrights of videos, music, and video games.

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc, 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Locast</span> Former American over-the-top streaming television service

Locast was an American non-profit streaming television service that allowed users to view live streams of over-the-air television stations. The service was founded by attorney David Goodfriend under the banner of the Sports Fans Coalition.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "200 WL 255989 (W.D.Pa.)" (PDF). Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 "iCrave Press Release" . Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  3. ↑ "Public Notice CRTC 1999-84". Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  4. ↑ Geist, Michael. "iCraveTV and the New Rules of Internet Broadcasting" (PDF).
  5. ↑ "Los Angeles New Service vs. Conus COM CO LTD" . Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  6. 1 2 "iCraveTV Signs Settlement Agreement That Shuts Down Web Site; Settlement Ends iCrave's Use of Illegally Transmitted Broadcast Signals". PRNewswire. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
  7. 1 2 "iCraveTV Settlement Leaves Legal Issues Open". Betanews. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
  8. ↑ "ivi, Inc. Launches Highly Disruptive Software Delivering Live TV to the Internet". PRWeb. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
  9. 1 2 Scherb, Matthew. "After Ten Years, Round Two Of The Legal Battle Over Internet TV Is Here". TechCrunch. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  10. ↑ Jeffrey, Don. "Ivi TV Loses Bid to Overturn Court-Ordered Shutdown". BloombergBusinessWeek. Archived from the original on August 31, 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
  11. ↑ Stastna, Kazi. "Bell's discounting of mobile TV against the rules, complaint claims". CBCNews. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
  12. 1 2 Geist, Michael. "The Ghost of iCraveTV?: The CRTC Asks Bell For Answers About Its Mobile TV Service in Net Neutrality Case". Michael Geist. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.