WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.

Last updated
WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name WPIX, Inc. et al. v. ivi, Inc.
ArguedMay 30 2012
DecidedAugust 27 2012
Case history
Procedural historyAffirmed holding from 765 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Holding
Internet-based retransmission of broadcast television is not entitled to a compulsory license under §111 of the Copyright Act
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Ralph K. Winter, Jr., Denny Chin, Christopher F. Droney
Case opinions
MajorityChin, joined by Winter, Droney
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976

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.

Contents

Background

ivi, Inc. is a Seattle-based company that began retransmitting broadcast television content via the Internet to paid subscribers on September 13, 2010. [1] Designed to be an improvement over more expensive traditional cable services, viewers could watch local broadcast TV from New York City and Seattle, and later Chicago and Los Angeles, from anywhere in the world for a monthly subscription of $4.99 without any special equipment. A recording service could be added for $0.99 per month. Shortly after beginning operations, ivi and CEO Todd Weaver received cease-and-desist notices from a group of affected copyright holders and television stations, who calculated that ivi's services severely decreased the value of their programming and decrease advertisement revenue.

On September 20, 2010, ivi filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking a declaration of non-infringement on the grounds that §111 of the Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes retransmission of broadcast television content for cable companies. [2] The same day, ivi issued a press release calling their legal action "a preemptive move to discourage needless litigation from big media," and expressing their desire to "work with content owners [to help] them to realize new revenue streams and reach more viewers from around the globe." [3]

On September 28, a group of copyright holders and broadcasters, including Disney, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, The CW, Telemundo, and others, filed a copyright infringement action against ivi in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. [4] ivi's earlier declaratory action was subsequently dismissed by the Washington district court on the grounds that it was improperly anticipatory. [5]

On January 31, 2011, Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Media Access Project, and the Open Technology Institute filed an amici brief with the court in support of ivi. [6] [7] Noting that "amicus briefs are unusual at the district court level," the brief argued that ivi should be considered a cable system under §111, and that granting a preliminary injunction against ivi would not serve the public interest. [6]

On February 20, 2011, the New York district court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction against ivi, finding that ivi was not a "cable system" and hence not entitled to a compulsory license under §111 of the Copyright Act. [8] ivi appealed the district's court decision [9] .

Opinion of the Appeals Court

ivi admitted that they had broadcast the plaintiff's copyrighted content, but offered an affirmative defense by arguing that §111 of the Copyright Act grants cable systems a compulsory license to retransmit broadcast television content. Hence, the principal issue to be decided by the court was whether ivi qualified as a "cable system" according to the Copyright Act. [10]

In deciding whether ivi qualified as a cable system under the Copyright Act, the court applied the two-step test from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. . Chevron dictates that courts should first consider the text of the relevant legislation and the intent of Congress. If the relevant legislation does not directly address the issue at hand, Chevron then instructs that courts should defer to the interpretation of the government agency that administers the statute, provided that the agency's interpretation is deemed to be "reasonable."

Chevron Step One

§111 of the Copyright Act defines a "cable system" as:

a facility, located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession of the United States, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.

The court found that "it is simply not clear" whether the text of the Copyright Act would include ivi as a cable system. [10]

Next, the court considered whether it was the legislative intent of Congress to include Internet-based retransmission as a type of cable system. The court observed that Congress' original intent in enacting §111 was to encourage cable systems to provide better television reception for remote communities that were poorly served by over-the-air broadcast television. Drawing upon Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission , the court found that "Congress intended to support localized—rather than nationwide—systems that use cable or optical fibers to transmit signals." [10] Because Internet-based retransmission is not intended to deliver content to remote regions and is not a localized transmission service, the court found that "Congress did not intend for §111's compulsory license to extent to Internet retransmissions." [10]

The court noted that it intentionally interpreted §111 of the Copyright Act "as narrowly as possible" according to New York Times Co. v. Tasini , in order to minimize government interference on the market; exceptions to the exclusive property rights of copyright holders should be granted sparingly. [10]

Chevron Step Two

Although the court found that step one of the Chevron test was sufficient to conclude that ivi is not entitled to a compulsory license, the court also provided a step two analysis to see if the United States Copyright Office has interpreted the Copyright Act in a way that would treat ivi as a cable system. The court found that this was not the case; the Copyright Office has repeatedly stated their view that Internet-based transmission not eligible for a compulsory license because it is "so vastly different from other retransmission industries now eligible for compulsory licensing." [11] The court found the Copyright Office's position to be a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

Irreparable Injury

The appeals court also ruled that if the injunction against ivi were not upheld, then the plaintiff broadcast companies would lose significant amounts of revenue. For instance, ivi's live broadcasting feature would allow viewers to watch programs earlier than would otherwise be available in their time zone. This is different from other services such as Hulu, which delays Internet re-transmission of broadcast television. Additionally, advertisers pay large sums to place commercials for specific demographics for broadcast television; ivi's services make this targeting far less effective. [10]

Public Interest

The appeals court reasoned that protection of copyright of broadcast television is in the public interest, by giving incentive to parties willing to create new works. The court opinion also states that ivi's services provide convenience and do not necessarily improve access to broadcast television. [10]

Therefore, on August 27, 2012, the appeals court affirmed the district court's opinion, ruling that ivi's retransmitting of broadcast television without obtaining licenses constituted copyright infringement. [10]

Service termination

ivi was forced to suspend their operations when the district court granted a preliminary injunction, and has not resumed operations since then. [9] After the appeals court decision supporting the injunction, an ivi spokesperson commented that "This is not the final chapter to this story", leading some to speculate that the company continued to work on litigation after the appeals ruling. [12] The decision has been called a "major victory for broadcasters." [13]

In light of this ruling, some have become frustrated that courts' and the FCC's interpretation of what constitutes a cable company has not kept up with modern technology, and that a clear Internet TV policy has not been established. However, as shown in the court case ABC v. Aereo , which provides VCR-like services rather than re-transmitting services as ivi attempted, it is possible to legally make TV available on the Internet for a profit. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

In cable television, governments apply a must-carry regulation stating that locally licensed television stations must be carried on a cable provider's system.

<i>Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley</i> American legal case

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The ruling was the first significant test of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Superstation is a term in North American broadcasting that has several meanings. Commonly, a "superstation" is a form of distant signal, a broadcast television signal—usually a commercially licensed station—that is retransmitted via communications satellite or microwave relay to multichannel television providers over a broad area beyond its primary terrestrial signal range.

<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.

FilmOn is an Internet-based television provider owned by FilmOn.TV Networks Inc. FilmOn.TV Networks is owned by Alki David, who founded the company in 2006.

<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>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. District Court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ivi, Inc.</span>

Ivi Inc. also called Ivi , is a Seattle-based American corporation which offers a software application providing live video streaming over the Internet for a flat rate. Ivi is the first online cable company. The Ivi TV player is a downloadable software application that runs on Windows, Macintosh, or Linux computers that offers live television over the Internet.

<i>Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Assn v. FCC</i>

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337 was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Congress required satellite television carriers to carry all requesting local broadcast stations in the market where the carrier voluntarily decides to carry one local station in order to, in part, preserve a multiplicity of local broadcast outlets for over-the-air-viewers who do not subscribe either to satellite or cable service.

<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.

Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems is a 2011 copyright infringement case decided in United States District Court, C.D. California.

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).

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.

<i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV</i>

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989, 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.

<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.

Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 was a copyright infringement lawsuit where the court evaluated if commenting on humorous videos in a transformative manner is fair use or exploiting videos for their humor without paying for their use.

References

  1. ↑ "ivi, Inc. Launches Highly Disruptive Software Delivering Live TV to the Internet". PR Web. September 13, 2010.
  2. ↑ "Complaint for declaratory judgement of copyright noninfringement" (PDF). September 20, 2010.
  3. ↑ "ivi TV Challenges 'Big Media' to Innovate Rather than Litigate". PR Web. September 20, 2010.
  4. ↑ Don Jeffrey (September 28, 2010). "Disney, CBS, Fox Sue Ivi for Streaming Shows on Web". Bloomberg.
  5. ↑ ivi, Inc. v. Fisher Communications, Inc., C10-1512JLR (W.D. Wash.January 19, 2011).
  6. 1 2 Jennifer A. Klear, Esq. (January 31, 2011). "Amicus Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction" (PDF).
  7. ↑ "Prominent Public Interest Groups Rally Around ivi TV" (Press release). ivi, Inc. February 1, 2011.
  8. ↑ WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 594F.Supp.2d (S.D.N.Y.February 22, 2011).
  9. 1 2 Don Jeffrey (May 30, 2012). "Ivi Asks Appeals Court to Reverse Web TV Service Shutdown". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on January 18, 2013.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 11-788-cv (2nd Cir.August 27, 2012).
  11. ↑ Don Jeffrey (August 27, 2012). "Ivi TV Loses Bid to Overturn Court-Ordered Shutdown". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on August 31, 2012.
  12. ↑ Sheldon Mak & Anderson (September 25, 2012). "TV Streaming Service Hits Roadblock Under U.S. Copyright Law".
  13. ↑ Cole, Harry (28 August 2012). "ivi TV Loses Round Two". CommLaw Blog. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth. Retrieved November 12, 2012.
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.