Fox v. Dish - Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

No.
13-56818
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT
FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
FILM CORP., AND FOX TELEVISION HOLDINGS, INC.,
Pl a i n t i f f s-Ap p e l l a n t s ,
v .
DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH NETWORK CORP., AND ECHOSTAR
TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C.
De f e n da n t s-Ap p e l l e e s .
On Ap p e a l f rom t h e Un i t e d St a t e s Di s t ri c t Court
f or t h e Ce n t ra l Di s t ri c t of Ca l i f orn i a
Ca s e No. 12-c v -04529
Di s t ri c t Judge Dol l y M. Ge e
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Ri c h a rd L. St on e
An dre w J. Th oma s
Da v i d R. Si n ge r
Amy M. Ga l l e gos
JENNER &BLOCK LLP
633 We s t 5t h St ., Sui t e 3600
Los An ge l e s , CA 90071
Pa ul M. Smi t h
JENNER &BLOCK LLP
1099 Ne w York Av e n ue , NW,
Sui t e 900
Wa s h i n gt on , DC 20001
At t orn e ys f or Pl a i n t i f f s-Ap p e l l a n t s
Fox Broa dc a s t i n g Comp a n y, Twe n t i e t h Ce n t ury Fox Fi l m Corp .,
a n d Fox Te l e v i s i on Hol di n gs , In c .
REDACTED
Case: 13-56818 12/19/2013 ID: 8910060 DktEntry: 10-1 Page: 1 of 80
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 2 6 . 1 o f th e F ed eral Rules o f Ap p ellate Pro c ed ure, and
to enab le th e Co urt to ev aluate p o ssi b le d i sq uali fi c ati o n o r rec usal, Ap p ellants
c erti fy as fo llo w s: Ap p ellants F o x B ro ad c asti ng Co mp any , Tw enti eth
Century F o x F i lm Co rp . , and F o x Telev i si o n H o ld i ng s, Inc . are eac h i nd i rec t,
w h o lly-o w ned sub si d i ari es o f Tw enty -F i rst Century F o x, Inc . , a p ub li c ly -
trad ed c o mp any . No p ub li c ly h eld c o mp any o w ns 1 0 p erc ent o r mo re o f
Tw enty -F i rst Century F o x, Inc . ' s sto c k .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
STATEMENTOF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Fox Ca r e f u l l y Con t r ol s An d Li c e n s e s It s Va l u a bl e
Pr ogr a ms To Th i r d Pa r t i e s , Gi vi n g Con s u me r s Nu me r ou s
Ch oi c e s Abou t Wh e r e , Wh e n An d How Th e y Wa t c h
Th e m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Fox's Li mi t e d Gr a n t Of Ri gh t s To Di s h Pr oh i bi t s In t e r n e t
Re t r a n s mi s s i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
C. Di s h Re t r a n s mi t s Fox's Si gn a l Ove r Th e In t e r n e t Wi t h ou t
ALi c e n s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
D. Th e RTC Agr e e me n t Pr oh i bi t s Di s h Fr om Au t h or i z i n g
Th e Copy i n g Of Fox Pr ogr a ms For Vi e wi n g Ou t s i de Th e
Home
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4
E. Wi t h Hoppe r Tr a n s f e r s , Di s h Is Au t h or i z i n g It s
Su bs c r i be r s To Copy Pr ogr a ms For Us e Ou t s i de Th e
Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
F. Th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t 's De n i a l Of Fox's Pr e l i mi n a r y
In j u n c t i on
Mot i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
i i i
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
I . Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
I I . The D is tric t Court Applied An Erroneous Legal Standard
Regarding The I rreparab le Harm Element Of The
Preliminary I nj unc tion Tes t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A. The Supreme Court I n eBay Condemned The Kind
Of Categoric al Approac h Employed By The D is tric t
Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B. The D is tric t Court' s Ruling That Fox' s Contrac tual
Relations hip With D is h Prec ludes Fox From
Es tab lis hing I rreparab le Harm I s Prec is ely The Type
Of Categoric al Rule The Supreme Court Rej ec ted I n
eBay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C. The D is tric t Court' s Ruling That Fox Cannot
Es tab lis h I rreparab le Harm Bec aus e I t Has Lic ens ed
I ts Works To Other D is trib utors I s Als o The Type
Of Categoric al Rule The Supreme Court Rej ec ted I n
eBay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
D . By Treating Fox' s Tes timony Ab out Future Harm
As Spec ulative, The D is tric t Court I mpos ed A
Heightened Standard For I nj unc tive Relief That
D eparts From The Traditional Eq uitab le Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7
I I I . The D is tric t Court' s Fac tual Findings Were Clearly
Erroneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0
A. The D is tric t Court Erred I n Finding No Threat Of
I rreparab le Harm To Fox' s D is trib utor Relations hips . . . . 4 0
(1 ) Fox' s I rreparab le Harm Evidenc e Exc eeds That
Whic h Other Courts Have Relied On I n Similar
Ci~c ums tanc es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0
iv
(2) The Court's Finding Of No Ha~^m To Fox's
Dist~ibuto~ Relationships Is Illogic al And
Implausible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
(3) The Court's Finding Of No HaNm To Fox's
Distributor Relationships Is Not Supported By
Evidenc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6
(4 ) The Court Ignored Key Evidenc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9
B. The Distric t Court Erred In Finding No Threat Of
Irreparable Harm To Fox's Commerc ial Advertising
Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0
IV. Fox Will Suc c eed On Its Copyright Infringement And
Breac h Of Contrac t Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
A. Dish Is Exc eeding The Sc ope Of Its Lic ense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
B. Dish Is Infringing The Public Performanc e Right . . . : . . . . . . 56
C. Dish Cannot Claim Its Subsc ribers Are "Doing" The
Transmitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
D. Dish Cannot Claim Its Internet Retransmissions Are
Private" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0
V. The Balanc e Of Harms Dec idedly Favors An Inj unc tion. . . . . . . . 6 2
VI. The Public Interest Favors An Inj unc tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Pa e s
Adams v . Freedom Forge Copp. ,
204 F. 3d 475 (3d Ci r. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Adobe Sy s. In c . v . On e Stop Mi c ro, In c . ,
84 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N. D. Cal . 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Al l i an c e fog th e Wi l d Roc ki es v . Cottrel l ,
632 F. 3d 1127 (9th Ci r. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Ameri c an Broadc asti n g Cos. , In c . v . Ae~eo, In c . ,
874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S. D. N. Y. 2012), aff' d 722 F. 3d 500 (2d. Ci r.
2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Assoc i ated Gen . Con t~ac to~s of Cal . , In c . v . Coal i ti on fog Ec on . Equi ty ,
950 F. Zd 1401 (9th Ci r. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Assoc i ated Press v . Otter,
682 F. 3d 821 (9th Ci r. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Caden c e Desi gn Sy s. , In c . v . Av an t! CoNp. ,
125 F. 3d 824 (9th Ci r. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Capi tol Rec ords, LLC v . ReDi gi , In c . ,
934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S. D. N. Y. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v . CSC Hol di n gs, In c . ,
536 F. 3d 121 (2d Ci r. 2008) ("Cabl ev i si on ") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Crowe & Dun l eav y , P. C. v . Sti dh am,
640 F. 3d 1140 (10th Ci r. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Di amon ti n ey v . Borg,
918 F. 2d 793 (9th Ci r. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
eBay , In c . v . Bi dder' s Edge, In c . ,
100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N. D. Cal . 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
v i
eBay, Inc. v . MercExchange, LLC,
401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Ci r. 2005) ..........................................................................24
eBay v . Me~cExchange, L.L.C. ,
547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................... passi m
Eldred v . Ashcroft,
537 U.S. 186 (2003) ......................................................................................62, 63
Flexi ble Li feli ne Sys. v . Preci si on Li ft, Inc.,
654 F.3d 989 (9th Ci r. 2011) ............................................................23, 26,27, 28
Fox Broadcasti ng Co. Inc. v . Di sh Network, L.L.C.,
905 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................21, 54
Fox T elev i si on Stati ons, Inc. v . Ba~ryDri lleN Content Sys., PLC,
915 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................... passi m
Fox T elev i si on Stati ons, Inc. v . Fi lmOn X LLC
(D.D.C.) ........................................................................................................42, 43
Fox T elev i si on Stati ons, Inc. v . Fi lmOn X LLC,
- - F. Supp. 2d - - , 2012 WL 4763414 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2013), appeal
docketed, No. 13- 7146 (D.C. Ci r. Sept. 20, 2013) ("Fi lmOn") .................. passi m
Frank Musi c Copp. v . Metro- Goldwyn- MayeN, Inc.,
772 F.2d 505 (9th Ci r. 1985) ..............................................................................30
Gi lder v . PGA T our, Inc.,
936 F.2d 417 (9th Ci r. 1991) ..............................................................................38
Glens Fali s Indemni ty Co. v . Ameri can Seati ng Co.,
248 F.2d 846 (9th Ci r. 1957) ..............................................................................47
Harper &Row Publi shers, Inc. v . Nati on Enters.,
471 U.S. 539 (1985) ............................................................................................30
Helash v . Ballad,
638 F.2d 74 (9th Ci r. 1980) ................................................................................46
Herb Reed Enters. v . Flori da Entm ' t Mgt. ,
2013 WL 6224288 (9th Ci r. Dec. 2, 2013) ...................................................26, 34
v i i
Jacobsen v . Katze~,
535 F. 3d 1373 (Fed. C i r . 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
LGS A r ch i tects, Inc. v . C oncor di a Homes of Nev . ,
434 F. 3d 1150 (9th C i r . 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
M. R. v . Dr eyfus,
697 F. 3d 706 (9th C i r . 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 40, 44, 54
Mar ti n v . F~^ ank l i n C api tal C or p. ,
546 U. S. 132 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
MDYl ndus. , LLC v . B l i zzar d E ntm' t, Inc. ,
629 F. 3d 928 (9th C i r . 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 55
Myer s v . Uni ted States,
652 F. 3d 1021 (9th C i r . 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
New Yor k Tr ust C o. v . E i sner ,
256 U. S. 345 (1921) (Hol mes, J. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Oak l and Tr i bune, Inc. v . C h r oni cl e Pub. C o. ,
762 F. 2d 1374 (9th C i r . 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Omega Impor ti ng C or p. v . Petr i -Ki ne C amer a C o. ,
451 F. 2d 1190 (2d C i r . 1971) (Fr i endl y, C . J. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
On C ommand Vi deo C opp. v . C ol umbi a Pi ctur es Indus. ,
777 F. Supp. 787 (N. D. C al . 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Per fect 10, Inc. v . Googl e, Inc. ,
653 F. 3d 976 (9th C i r . 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Pi mental v . Dr eyfus,
670 F. 3d 1096 (9th C i r . 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
P~esi di o C omponents, Inc. v . A m. Tech . C er ami cs C or p. ,
702 F. 3d 1351 (Fed. C i r . 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Pyr o Spectacul ar s Nor th , Inc. v . Souza,
861 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E . D. C al . 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
v i i i
Rent-A-C enter , I nc . v . C anyon T el . &Appl ianc e Rental , I nc . ,
944 F. 2d 597 (9th C ir . 1991)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 , 49
Rober t Bosc h LLC v . Pyl on Mfg. C or p. ,
659 F. 3 d 1142 (Fed. C ir . 2011)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
S . O . S . , I nc . v . Payday, I nc . ,
8 8 6 F. 2d 108 1 (9th C ir . 198 9)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
S al ingeN v . G ol fing,
607 F. 3 d 68 (2d C ir . 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27, 3 3
S ec u r ity-Fir st N ational Bank of Los Angel es v . Lu tz ,
3 22 F. 2d 3 48 (9th C ir . 1963 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
S il v er s v . S ony Pic tu r es E ntm ' t, I nc . ,
402 F. 3 d 8 8 1 (9th C ir . 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
S tinnett v . Dam son O il C opp. ,
648 F. 2d 576 (9th C ir . 198 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
S tu hl bar g I ntl S al es C o. v . John D. Br u sh & C o. ,
240 F. 3 d 8 3 2 (9th C ir . 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 , 3 8
S u n Mic r osystem s, I nc . v . Mic r osoft C or p. ,
18 8 F. 3 d 1115 (9th C ir . 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 54
T r easu r e V al l ey Potato Bar gaining Ass ' n v . O r e-I da Foods, I nc . ,
497 F. 2d 203 (9th C ir . 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8
T r iad S ys. C or p. v . S ou theaster n E xpr ess C o. ,
64 F. 3 d 13 3 0 (9th C ir . 1995)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 62
Wainer Br os. E ntm ' t, I nc . v . WT V S ys. , I nc . ,
8 24 F. S u pp. 2d 1003 (C . D. C al . 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Winter v . N atu r al Res. Def. C ou nc il , I nc .
555 U. S . 7 (2008 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23
Wisdom I m post S al es C o. v . Labatt Br ewing C o. ,
3 3 9 F. 3 d 101 (2d C ir . 2003 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ix
STATUTES
17 U.S.C. 106(4)
...................................................................................................5 6
17 U.S.C. 111, 115 , 118, 119, 122 ......................................................................3 0
17 U.S.C. 201(d)
...................................................................................................3 2
17 U.S.C. 5 02(a)
...................................................................................................29
28 U.S.C. 1292(a)
...................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. 13 3 1
........................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. 13 67
........................................................................................................1
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 ...............................................................1, 5 6, 60, 61
OTHER AUTHORITIES
3 M. Nimmer &D. Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT 10.15 [A]
(2012)
..................................................................................................................5 5
4 M. Nimmer &D. Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT 13 .05 (2013 ) ...................3 0
11 A C. Wright, A. Mil l er, et al ., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
2948.1 (2013 ) ......................................................................................................3 9
Federal Rul e of Appel l ate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) .......................................................1
Federal Rul e of Appel l ate Procedure 3 2(a)(7)(C) ...................................................65
Federal Rul e of Appel l ate Procedure 3 4(a)
.............................................................64
http: / / mediadecoder. b l ogs .n ytimes .com/ 2013 / 02/ 21 / tv s - con n ected- to-
the- In tern et- to- b e- coun ted- b y- n iel s en / ............................................................... 5 3
x
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This is an ac t io n f o r v io l at io ns o f t he Co pyr ight Ac t , 17 U.S.C. Se c t io n
101, and b r e ac h o f c o nt r ac t . The dist r ic t c o u r t had j u r isdic t io n o v e r t he
c o pyr ight c l aim s u nde r 28 U.S.C. Se c t io n 1331 and t he c o nt r ac t c l aim s u nde r
28 U.S.C. Se c t io n 1367. The c o u r t de nie d t he pr e l im inar y inj u nc t io n so u ght
b y P l aint if f s- Appe l l ant s Fo x B r o adc ast ing Co m pany, Twe nt ie t h Ce nt u r y Fo x
Fil m Co r po r at io n, Inc . and Fo x Te l e v isio n Ho l dings, Inc . ( c o l l e c t iv e l y,
"Fo x") o n Se pt e m b e r 23, 2013. ER 298- 312. Fo x t im e l y f il e d it s no t ic e o f
appe al o n Oc t o b e r 22, 2013. Fe d. R. App. P . 4 ( a)( 1)( A); ER 313- 332. This
Co u r t has j u r isdic t io n u nde r 28 U.S.C. Se c t io n 1292( a).
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1 . Fox's l i c e n se w i t h Di sh doe s n ot p e r m i t an d e xp r e ssl y p r oh i b i t s
Di sh fr om st r e am i n g Fox's p r og r am m i n g ov e r t h e In t e r n e t or au t h or i z i n g
di g i t al c op i e s for m ob i l e v i e w i n g . Ot h e r c ou r t s t h at h av e addr e sse d su c h
u n au t h or i z e d st r e am i n g or c op y i n g h av e fou n d Fox, as a c op y r i g h t ow n e r ,
i r r e p ar ab l y h ar m e d b y i t . Th e Su p r e m e Cou r t h as r e j e c t e d c at e g or i c al r u l e s
for i n- e p ar ab l e h ar m . Di d t h e di st r i c t c ou r t ab u se i t s di sc r e t i on b y
c at e g or i c al l y r e j e c t i n g i r r e p ar ab l e h ar m t o Fox fr om t h e sam e k i n d of
u n au t h or i z e d e xp l oi t at i on of i t s c op y r i g h t e d p r og r am m i n g b y Di sh b e c au se :
(a) Fox h as l i c e n se d i t s p r og r am m i n g for som e u se s t o Di sh an d (b ) Fox h as
al so e xp l oi t e d t h e r i g h t s at i ssu e t h r ou g h l i c e n se s w i t h ot h e r di st r i b u t or s?
2. Pr oof of ac t u al , p r e se n t h ar m or a c e r t ai n t y of fu t u r e h ar m i s n ot
r e q u i r e d for a p r e l i m i n ar y i n j u n c t i on ; a p l ai n t i ff n e e d on l y sh ow a " si g n i fi c an t
r i sk " of h ar m . Tw o Fox e xe c u t i v e s t e st i fi e d t h at Di sh 's u n au t h or i z e d
e xp l oi t at i on of Fox p r og r am s w ou l d u su r p Fox's c on t r ol ov e r t h e l i c e n si n g of
i t s p r og r am s, di sr u p t Fox's di st r i b u t i on r e l at i on sh i p s, an d u n de r m i n e Fox's
ab i l i t y t o m e asu r e an d se l l c om m e r c i al s. Di d t h e di st r i c t c ou r t ab u se i t s
di sc r e t i on b y i m p r op e r l y r e q u i r i n g Fox t o p r ov e ac t u al , e xi st i n g , c e r t ai n i n j u r y
an d b y di sm i ssi n g c om p e t e n t e v i de n c e of l i k e l y fu t u r e h ar m as " sp e c u l at i v e " ?
2
3. Other a p p el l a te a nd di s tri c t c o u rts ha ve fo u nd tha t where a n
i nfri ng er s trea m s Fo x's tel evi s i o n p ro g ra m s o ver the I nternet o r o therwi s e
di s tri b u tes them wi tho u t a u tho ri z a ti o n, the i nfri ng er i rrep a ra b l y ha rm s Fo x b y
u nderm i ni ng Fo x's neg o ti a ti o ns wi th a u tho ri z ed l i c ens ees - a nd b y
c i rc u m venti ng N i el s en's vi ewers hi p ra ti ng s m etri c s tha t a dverti s ers a nd Fo x
dep end o n. Here, Fo x s u b m i tted the s a m e evi denc e o f i rrep a ra b l e ha rm a s i t
di d i n the o ther c a s es . Di d the di s tri c t c o u rt a b u s e i ts di s c reti o n b y
di s reg a rdi ng thi s c o m p etent evi denc e a nd i ns tea d rel y i ng o n the u ns u p p o rted,
s p ec u l a ti ve o p i ni o n o f Di s h's reta i ned ec o no m i s t?
J
INTRODUCTION
This appeal addresses fundamental q uestio ns abo ut what sho wing a
co pyright o wner must make to satisfy the irreparable harm req uirement o f the
traditio nal fo ur- part eq uitable test fo r inj unctiv e relief an issue this Circuit
has no t addressed since it held in 2011 that under the Supreme Co urt's
decisio n in eBay v . Me~cExchange, L . L . C. , 547 U. S. 388 (2006), co pyright
plaintiffs no lo nger benefit fro m a presumptio n o f irreparable harm o nce they
hav e established a likeliho o d o f infringement.
Fo x makes its po pular telev isio n pro gramming av ailable to co nsumers
in many ways by, amo ng o ther things, licensing it to subscriptio n telev isio n
distributo rs such as Dish. Dish has no o wnership interest in Fo x's pro grams.
Instead, Fo x grants Dish the limited right to distribute Fo x's pro grams v ia
satellite telev isio n. The license expressly pro hibits Dish fro m retransmitting
o r autho riz ing anyo ne to retransmit Fo x's signal o v er the Internet. It also
pro hibits Dish fro m autho riz ing anyo ne to co py Fo x's pro grams o ther than fo r
priv ate, in- ho me use.
In January 2013, Dish launched two new unlicensed serv ices fo r its
subscribers that braz enly v io late bo th o f these express restrictio ns. "Dish
Anywhere" streams liv e telev isio n pro gramming o v er the Internet to Dish
4
s u b s c r i b e r s , and "Hoppe r T r ans f e r s " e nab l e s Di s h s u b s c r i b e r s t o c opy Fox's
pr ogr ams ont o t he i r i Pad t ab l e t s f or vi e wi ng ou t s i de t he home .
Fox s ou ght t o pr e l i mi nar i l y e nj oi n t he s e ne w i nf r i ngi ng s e r vi c e s
pe ndi ng t r i al , and t he di s t r i c t c ou r t de ni e d t he mot i on. T he c ou r t di d not
q u e s t i on Fox's l i k e l i hood of pr e vai l i ng on t he me r i t s of i t s b r e ac h of c ont r ac t
and c opyr i ght i nf r i nge me nt c l ai ms wi t h good r e as on. T wo we e k s b e f or e
Di s h annou nc e d i t s ne w s e r vi c e s , anot he r c ou r t i n t he C e nt r al Di s t r i c t of
C al i f or ni a had c onf i r me d i n a pu b l i s he d de c i s i on t hat s t r e ami ng Fox's
pr ogr ams ove r t he I nt e r ne t and t o mob i l e de vi c e s wi t hou t pe r mi s s i on i s
c opyr i ght i nf r i nge me nt . Fox T e l e vi s i on S t at i ons , I nc . v. B ar r yDr i l l e r C ont e nt
S ys ., PLC , 915 F. S u pp. 2d 1138 (C .D. C al . 2012).1 Di s h's c ondu c t
c ons t i t u t e s c opyr i ght i nf r i nge me nt f or t he s ame r e as ons and f or t he addi t i onal
r e as on t hat i t e xc e e ds t he s c ope of i t s nar r ow l i c e ns e f r om Fox.
T he di s t r i c t c ou r t b as e d i t s de c i s i on t o de ny an i nj u nc t i on on an
u npr e c e de nt e d, ar t i f i c i al l y nar r ow vi e w of i r r e par ab l e har m. Al t hou gh t he
c ou r t 's or de r appe ar s on t he s u r f ac e t o b e l i mi t e d t ou c hi ng onl y one par t of
t he f ou r- f ac t or pr e l i mi nar y i nj u nc t i on s t andar d t he c ou r t 's anal ys i s i n f ac t
r e pr e s e nt s a s we e pi ng de par t u r e f r om pr e c e de nt i n t hi s and ot he r c i r c u i t s
appl yi ng t he i r r e par ab l e har m r e q u i r e me nt .
~ T hat de c i s i on i s c u r r e nt l y on appe al t o t hi s C ou r t . Or al ar gu me nt was he ar d
on Au gu s t 27, 2013.
5
Although i t p ur p or te d to f ollow e Bay's f our - p ar t i n j un c ti on stan d ar d ,
the d i str i c t c our t i n f ac t c on tr ad i c te d e Bay's c or e hold i n g that c ate gor i c al r ule s
( e i the r f or or agai n st i n j un c ti on s) have n o p lac e i n the i r r e p ar ab le har m
an alysi s. The d i str i c t c our t i n ste ad c on c lud e d that b e c ause Fox has c hose n to
e xp loi t i ts c op yr i ghts thr ough an e xi sti n g li c e n se agr e e me n t w i th Di sh an d
thr ough li c e n se s w i th othe r d i str i b utor s li k e Amazon an d Ap p le , all of Fox's
i n j ur i e s ar e n e c e ssar i ly q uan ti f i ab le an d thus r e d r e ssab le b y mon e y d amage s.
The p e r ve r se e f f e c t of thi s ap p li c ati on of e Bay i s that Fox an d othe r c op yr i ght
ow n e r s w ho e xp loi t the i r w or k s ar e c ate gor i c ally d i sq uali f i e d f r om ob tai n i n g
i n te r i m i n j un c ti ve r e li e f me r e ly b e c ause the y have e xi sti n g c on tr ac tual
r e lati on shi p s w i th the i n f r i n ge r or othe r li c e n se d d i str i b utor s.
The d i str i c t c our t f ur the r e r r e d b y d i smi ssi n g the te sti mon y of se n i or
Fox e xe c uti ve s c on c e r n i n g the li k e ly f utur e c on se q ue n c e s of Di sh's n e w
se r vi c e s as i n he r e n tly sp e c ulati ve . I n d oi n g so, the c our t i n augur ate d a n e w ,
he i ghte n e d r e q ui r e me n t f or show i n g i r r e p ar ab le har m i n c op yr i ght c ase s,
e f f e c ti ve ly r e p lac i n g the r e q ui r e me n t that the p lai n ti f f show a si gn i f i c an t r i sk
of har m that i s d i f f i c ult to c alc ulate w i th a r e q ui r e me n t that the p lai n ti f f show
ac tual, p r e se n t har m or c e r tai n f utur e har m. The d i str i c t c our t f ai le d to
r e c ogn i ze that the i n te r e sts at stak e i n a c ase i n volvi n g the i n f r i n ge me n t or
b r e ac h of a r i ght to e xc lud e the e sse n c e of an y p r op e r ty r i ght, i n c lud i n g
D
c o p y r i g h t ar e q u al i t at i v el y d i f f er en t f r o m t h o s e t h at may be at s t ak e i n an
o r d i n ar y c o mmer c i al d i s p u t e.
Ot h er c o u r t s t h at h av e ad d r es s ed s i mi l ar , u n au t h o r i z ed I n t er n et
s t r eami n g an d d i s t r i bu t i o n o f t el ev i s i o n p r o g r ammi n g o r mo v i es h av e r eac h ed
t h e o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n , f i n d i n g a c l ear t h r eat o f i r r ep ar abl e h ar m t o c o p y r i g h t
o wn er s i n s o me c as es bas ed o n t h e ex ac t s ame ev i d en c e t h at Fo x p r o f f er ed
h er e. Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s l eg al er r o r s mo v e t h e g o al p o s t s d r amat i c al l y f o r
c o p y r i g h t o wn er s wh o s er v e t h e p u r p o s es u n d er l y i n g t h e C o p y r i g h t Ac t by
d i s s emi n at i n g t h ei r c r eat i v e wo r k s . Th ey c o n t r av en e t h e k ey t eac h i n g o f t h e
Su p r eme C o u r t ' s d ec i s i o n i n eBay an d mak e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t an o u t l i er . Th i s
C o u r t s h o u l d r ev er s e.
STATEMENT OF THE C ASE
Fo x d i s t r i bu t es i t s p o p u l ar t el ev i s i o n p r o g r ammi n g t o c o n s u mer s o n
c abl e an d s at el l i t e t el ev i s i o n , as wel l as o t h er med i a f o r mat s s u c h as v i d eo-o n -
d eman d ("VOD"), d i g i t al d o wn l o ad s , an d I n t er n et s t r eami n g . Di s h , a s at el l i t e
t el ev i s i o n p r o v i d er , o bt ai n ed a n ar r o w l i c en s e f r o m Fo x t h at i n c l u d es a
l i mi t ed s et o f r i g h t s an d ex c l u d es o t h er f o r ms o f d i s t r i bu t i o n .
Th i s i s t h e s ec o n d ap p eal i n v o l v i n g Di s h ' s br eac h o f t h e p ar t i es '
l i c en s i n g ag r eemen t an d i n f r i n g emen t o f Fo x ' s c o p y r i g h t s . I n ear l y 2012,
r at h er t h an ac c ep t i n g Fo x ' s l i c en s e f o r VOD t h at p r o h i bi t s f as t-f o r war d i n g o f
7
commercials, Dish launched an unauthorized serv ice ("Primetime Anytime")
which automatically records all primetime network shows f or later v iewing
on demand and which includes a f eature ("AutoHop") that automatically
eliminates all commercials when those shows are v iewed. Fox mov ed to
preliminarily enj oin these serv ices in May 2012. The district court denied
Fox's motion, and this Court af f irmed. Fox f iled a petition f or en Banc
rev iew and, on August 30, 2013, Dish was ordered to f ile a response. See
Case No. 12-57048, Dkt. No. 99. Dish f iled its response on September 20,
2013 and, with leav e of court, Fox f iled a reply on September 26, 2013.
In January 2013, Dish launched its next generation set-top-box, the
"Hopper with Sling" and two new, unauthorized serv ices "Dish Anywhere"
and "Hopper Transf ers." Ev en though the parties' license agreement
prohibits Dish f rom streaming Fox programs ov er the Internet or authorizing
copies of the programs to be made f or v iewing on iPads, Dish Anywhere
streams Fox's programs ov er the Internet and Hopper Transf ers authorizes
Dish subscribers to copy Fox's programs onto their iPads.
On February 21, 2013, Fox f iled a First Amended Complaint and then
mov ed to preliminarily enj oin Dish's new 2013 serv ices. The motion was
argued on April 19, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the district court denied
the motion solely on the grounds that Fox had not shown a threat of
,~
i r r e p a r a b l e ha r m, a f t e r a ssumi ng Fox's l i k e l i hood of suc c e ss on t he me r i t s.
Thi s a p p e a l f ol l ow e d .
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Fox Ca r e f ul l y Cont r ol s And L i c e nse s I t s Va l ua b l e Pr ogr a ms
To Thi r d Pa r t i e s, Gi vi ng Consume r s Nume r ous Choi c e s
Ab out Whe r e , Whe n And How The y Wa t c h The m.
Fox ow ns t he c op y r i ght s i n nume r ous b r oa d c a st t e l e vi si on p r ogr a ms,
i nc l ud i ng p op ul a r a nd c r i t i c a l l y a c c l a i me d se r i e s suc h a s Gl e e , The Si mp sons,
Fa mi l y Guy , Touc h, a nd Bone s ( t he "Fox Pr ogr a ms") . ER 226. Fox sp e nd s
hund r e d s of mi l l i ons of d ol l a r s p r od uc i ng a nd a c q ui r i ng t he r i ght s t o t he Fox
Pr ogr a ms. ER 1797-1798, 226. Fox gi ve s c onsume r s a n unp r e c e d e nt e d r a nge
of op t i ons f or vi e w i ng i t s p r ogr a ms t hr ough nume r ous l i c e nse d c ha nne l s,
usi ng some of t he l a t e st t e c hnol ogy . ER 228-229. Fox d oe s so b y se l e c t i ve l y
l i c e nsi ng i t s p r ogr a ms t o t e l e vi si on, I nt e r ne t , a nd ot he r d i st r i b ut or s. I d . ; ER
The ma i n d i st r i b ut i on c ha nne l f or Fox Pr ogr a ms i s t he Fox Ne t w or k ,
one of t he f our ma jor c omme r c i a l b r oa d c a st ne t w or k s i n t he U ni t e d St a t e s.
ER 1797, 226-227. Wi t h mor e t ha n 200 l oc a l st a t i on a f f i l i a t e s ( some of
w hi c h a r e ow ne d b y Fox) , t he Fox Ne t w or k b r oa d c a st s p r ogr a mmi ng ove r t he
a i r w a ve s t o vi r t ua l l y a ny one w i t h a w or k i ng a nt e nna a nd a t e l e vi si on. ER
1797. Consume r s ma y a l so w a t c h t he Fox Ne t w or k t hr ough p a i d
E
s u b s c r i p t i o n s t o c a b l e , t e l c o a n d s a t e l l i t e t e l e v i s i o n di s t r i b u t o r s l i k e Di s h. ER
228. On b e ha l f o f t he t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s i t o wn s , Fo x g r a n t s t he s e
m u l t i c ha n n e l v i de o p r o g r a m m i n g di s t r i b u t o r s ("MVPDs ") t he r i g ht t o
r e t r a n s m i t Fo x's b r o a dc a s t s i g n a l t o t he i r s u b s c r i b e r s i n e xc ha n g e f o r a f e e .
I d.
Fo x a l s o l i c e n s e s t hi r d p a r t i e s , i n c l u di n g s o m e MVPDs , t he r i g ht t o
di s t r i b u t e Fo x Pr o g r a m s t hr o u g h n e we r f o r m s o f m e di a , s u c h a s VOD,
I n t e r n e t s t r e a m i n g , a n d di g i t a l do wn l o a ds . ER 228-231. Fo r e xa m p l e , Fo x
a u t ho r i z e s Hu l u a n d Am a z o n t o s t r e a m Fo x Pr o g r a m s o v e r t he I n t e r n e t , a n d i t
a u t ho r i z e s Ap p l e t o o f f e r do wn l o a da b l e v e r s i o n s o f Fo x Pr o g r a m s t hr o u g h
i T u n e s . I d. Fo x c a r e f u l l y o r c he s t r a t e s whe r e a n d whe n i t s p r o g r a m s c a n b e
v i e we d, s t r e a m e d, do wn l o a de d, a n d p u r c ha s e d s o t ha t i t c a n e a r n di f f e r e n t
r e v e n u e s t r e a m s f r o m i t s p r o g r a m s . ER 227, 229-231, 1800.
No t wi t hs t a n di n g t he s e i m p o r t a n t r e v e n u e s t r e a m s , m o s t o f Fo x's
p r o g r a m m i n g c o s t s a r e b o r n e b y a dv e r t i s e r s who p a y f o r t he r i g ht t o s ho w
a dv e r t i s e m e n t s du r i n g c o m m e r c i a l b r e a k s i n t he p r o g r a m s . ER 1799.
Adv e r t i s e r s p a y m o r e m o n e y t o ha v e t he i r a dv e r t i s e m e n t s di s p l a y e d du r i n g
t e l e v i s i o n p r o g r a m s wi t h hi g he r v i e we r s hi p a n d, s p e c i f i c a l l y , p r o g r a m s wi t h
hi g h v i e we r s hi p o f c o m m e r c i a l s . ER 227-228. T he m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l
c o m m e r c i a l v i e we r s hi p a n d i m p r e s s i o n s r a t i n g t o a dv e r t i s e r s i s t he "C3"
10
r a t i n g g e n e r a t e d by N i e l s e n Me d i a R e s e a r c h ( " N i e l s e n " ) . I d . C3 q u a n t i f i e s
t h e a v e r a g e n u mbe r of c omme r c i a l s v i e we d d u r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p r og r a m wh e n
i t a i r s on s t a n d a r d t e l e v i s i on a n d f or t h e n e x t t h r e e d a ys ( t o c a p t u r e d a t a f r om
v i e we r s wh o wa t c h t h e p r og r a m l a t e r on t h e i r DVR s ) . I d .
B. Fox 's Li mi t e d Gr a n t Of R i g h t s To Di s h P r oh i bi t s
I n t e r n e t R e t r a n s mi s s i on .
Di s h i s a u t h or i z e d t o r e t r a n s mi t t h e Fox N e t wor k br oa d c a s t s i g n a l v i a
s a t e l l i t e t e l e v i s i on p u r s u a n t t o a 2002 l i c e n s e a g r e e me n t ( t h e " R TC
Ag r e e me n t " ) . ER 1800, 1805-1819. Un d e r a 2010 a me n d me n t , Di s h a g r e e d
ER 1802, 1831.
I d . ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) .
Di s h a l s o a g r e e d n ot t o a u t h or i z e ot h e r s t o r e t r a n s mi t Fox 's s i g n a l . Th e
R TC Ag r e e me n t s t a t e s t h a t Di s h " s h a l l n ot , f or p a y or ot h e r wi s e , .
a u t h or i z e t h e . . . r e t r a n s mi s s i on of a n y p or t i on a n y [Fox-own e d ] S t a t i on 's
An a l og S i g n a l wi t h ou t p r i or wr i t t e n p e r mi s s i on . " ER 1800-1801, 1810-1811 .
11
C. Dish Retransmits Fox's Signal Over The I nternet Without A
License.
On January 7, 2013, at the Consumer E lectronics Show ("CE S") in Las
Vegas, Dish announced its new service f or streaming live television over the
I nternet, which it calls the "Dish Anywhere E xp erience." The centerp iece of
Dish Anywhere is the second generation Hop p er set- top box, called "Hop p er
with Sling." E R 1534- 1535, 1542- 1543. Dish's January 7, 2013 p ress release
says that subscribers will now be able to "[w]atch live and recorded television
anywhere on I nternet- connected tablets, smartp hones and PCs at no additional
charge using the Hop p er's built- in Sling cap abilities and the new Dish
Anywhere ap p ." I d. According to Dish, the technology works by "encoding
and redirecting ...alive or recorded TV signal f rom the Hop p er to I nternet-
connected iOS and Android tablets and smartp hones." I d. This means Dish
is now retransmitting Fox's broadcast signal over the I nternet.
Though Dish had of f ered streaming devices bef ore (including the
standalone Sling Adap ter and a discontinued Sling- enabled DVR), they were
niche p roducts that Dish's CE O Joe Clayton admits that Dish "really didn't
tell a lot of p eop le about." E R 1539; Lodged DVD, Video 5. As of late 2012,
of Dish subscribers were using Dish's earlier (now
discontinued) version of aSling- enabled DVR. E R 1541, 1791- 1794. Now,
12
Mr. Clayton e x p lai ne d , Di sh i s " tryi ng to comme rci ali ze our te chnolog y at a
much hi g he r le v e l than we 'v e d one i n the p ast." ER 1539.
In a sle w of p romoti onal v i d e os, Di sh e mp hasi ze s that i ts ne w se rv i ce i s
not the same as p re v i ous stre ami ng d e v i ce s. Inste ad , the se cond- g e ne rati on
Hop p e r se t- top box i s " an amazi ng ne w p rod uct." ER 1538; Lod g e d DVD,
Vi d e o 2 . Mr. Clayton brag g e d that " thi s ne w Di sh Anywhe re cap abi li ty i s
now much e asi e r to use " than Di sh's e arli e r S li ng d e v i ce s. ER 1537- 1538;
Lod g e d DVD, Vi d e o 1. Mr. Khe mka d i ffe re nti ate d Di sh's ne w se rv i ce from
othe r stre ami ng se rv i ce s that re q ui re " e x tra hard ware , " " se p arate ap p s, " or are
li mi te d to " i n- home v i e wi ng only." ER 1539; Lod g e d DVD Vi d e o 4 .
Di sh's Chi e f Marke ti ng O ffi ce r also p romi se d to " ki ck off a massi v e
marke ti ng camp ai g n p romoti ng how the i ncre d i ble p latform conti nue s to
re d e fi ne the i n- home , and the out- of- home e nte rtai nme nt e x p e ri e nce ." ER
1538; Lod g e d DVD, Vi d e o 2 . In Fe bruary 2 013, Di sh announce d a " ne w
multi mi lli on- d ollar nati onal marke ti ng camp ai g n" i nclud i ng " a se ri e s of
te le v i si on, rad i o, p ri nt and d i g i tal ad v e rti se me nts" hi g hli g hti ng " the Hop p e r's
ne w bui lt- i n S li ng cap abi li ti e s and the ne w Di sh Anywhe re ap p ." ER 1537,
1559- 1560.
13
D. The RTC Agreement P ro hi b i ts Di s h Fro m Autho ri zi ng The
Co pyi ng Of Fo x P ro grams Fo r Vi ewi ng Outs i de The Ho me.
The RTC Agreement b ars Di s h fro m autho ri zi ng the rec o rdi ng o f Fo x
P ro grams , o ther than b y c o ns umers fo r pri v ate ho me us e ( the "No-Co pyi ng
Cl aus e") :
Ec ho Star [ Di s h' s predec es s o r] s hal l no t, fo r pay o r
o therwi s e, rec o rd, c o py, dupl i c ate andl o r autho ri ze
the rec o rdi ng, c o pyi ng, dupl i c ati o n ( o ther than b y
c o ns umers fo r pri v ate ho me us e) o r retrans mi s s i o n
o f any po rti o n o f any Stati o n' s Anal o g Si gnal
wi tho ut pri o r wri tten permi s s i o n.
ER 1800-1801, 1810-1811 ( emphas i s added) .
Co ns i s tent wi th i ts agreement wi th Fo x, Di s h' s Res i denti al Sub s c ri b er
Agreement al s o makes c l ear that s ub s c ri b ers do no t hav e the ri ght to c o py
pro grams fo r us e o uts i de thei r ho mes :
P ri v ate Ho me Vi ewi ng Onl y. DISH Netwo rk
pro v i des Serv i c es to yo u s o l el y fo r v i ewi ng, us e and
enjo yment i n yo ur pri v ate ho me. Yo u agree that no
Serv i c es pro v i ded to yo u wi l l b e v i ewed i n areas
o pen to the pub l i c , c o mmerc i al es tab l i s hments o r
o ther res i denti al l o c ati o ns . Serv i c es may no t b e
reb ro adc as t o r perfo rmed, and admi s s i o n may no t b e
c harged fo r l i s teni ng to o r v i ewi ng any Serv i c es . If
yo ur Serv i c es are v i ewed i n an aYea o pen to the
pub l i c , a c o mmerc i al es tab l i s hment o r ano ther
res i denti al l o c ati o n, we may di s c o nnec t yo ur
Serv i c es .. .
ER 1742 ( emphas i s added) .
14
E. With Hopper Transfers, Dish Is Authorizing Its Subscribers
To Copy Programs For Use Outside The Home.
At CES, Dish al so announced the l aunch of Hopper Transfers. Hopper
Transfers al l ows subscribers to make copies of programs on their Appl e iPad
tabl ets. ER 1544. Once a copy of a program is saved l ocal l y to the
subscriber' s iPad, the subscriber can watch it even if she is somepl ace where
there is no Internet connection, l ike an airpl ane. In Dish' s press rel ease, Mr.
Khemka announced:
Hopper Transfers compl etes the TV Everywhere
equation by giving DISH customers the abil ity to
take their recorded tel evision programs and watch
them even when no Internet connection is avail abl e,
such as on a pl ane For the first time,
customers can trul y enjoy their DISH service
anytime, anywhere.
ER 1544 (emphasis added).
Likewise, Dish' s website advertises that with Hopper Transfers you can
"simpl y transfer your recorded TV programs to your iPad with our free app
before yoi~ l eave the house and you can enjoy your favorite movies or shows
on fl ights or keep your kids entertained dining a l ong road trip." ER 1550
(emphasis added). A person who has l eft the house and is watching a copy of
a Fox program on an airpl ane or on a l ong road trip is, by definition, not at
home. Thus, the copy Dish is authorizing that person to make with Hopper
Transfers is not l imited to "private home use," as the No-Copying Cl ause
15
r e q u i r e s . Li ke Di s h Anywhe r e , Hoppe r T r a ns f e r s i s only a v a i la b le t o c u r r e nt ,
pa yi ng Di s h s u b s c r i b e r s . ER 301-302 (Or de r a t 4 -5 ) .
F. T he Di s t r i c t Cou r t 's De ni a l Of Fox's Pr e li mi na r y Inju nc t i on
Mot i on.
T he di s t r i c t c ou r t c or r e c t ly f ou nd t ha t s u b s c r i b e r s wi t h Di s h Anywhe r e
c a n wa t c h li v e t e le v i s i on (i nc lu di ng t he Fox Pr ogr a ms ) ov e r t he Int e r ne t . ER
301 (Or de r a t 4 ) . T he di s t r i c t c ou r t a ls o f ou nd t ha t Hoppe r T r a ns f e r s "a llows
Di s h c u s t ome r s t o c opy pr e -r e c or de d pr ogr a ms f r om t he i r DVRs t o Apple
i Pa d t a b le t s s o t he y c a n b e v i e we d `on t he go. "' ER 302 (Or de r a t 5 ) .
T he di s t r i c t c ou r t f u r t he r r e c ogni z e d t ha t Di s h's "r i ght t o r e t r a ns mi t t he
Fox b r oa dc a s t i s gov e r ne d b y [ t he RT C] Agr e e me nt ," i nc lu di ng t he No-
Copyi ng Cla u s e a nd No-Int e r ne t Cla u s e . ER 302 (Or de r a t 5 ) . T he di s t r i c t
c ou r t ne v e r t he le s s c hos e t o b ypa s s t he i s s u e of Fox's li ke li hood of s u c c e s s on
t he me r i t s t o r e a c h t he c onc lu s i on t ha t "e v e n a s s u mi ng t ha t Fox i s li ke ly t o
s u c c e e d on t he me r i t s of i t s c la i ms ," ER 312 (Or de r a t 15 ) , Fox f a i le d t o s how
t ha t i t s t hr e a t e ne d ha r ms we r e t he t ype of i nju r i e s t ha t ju s t i f y i nju nc t i v e r e li e f .
ER 304 (Or de r a t 7)
Pa r a doxi c a lly, t he di s t r i c t c ou r t a c knowle dge d t ha t ne a r ly a ll of t he
ha r ms i de nt i f i e d b y Fox ha v e b e e n f ou nd b y ot he r di s t r i c t c ou r t s i n t hi s
Ci r c u i t t o b e i r r e pa r a b le , t hu s ju s t i f yi ng i nju nc t i v e r e li e f . Se e ER 305 (Or de r
a t 8) ("Di s t r i c t c ou r t s i n t hi s c i r c u i t ha v e r e c ogni z e d t ha t ha r ms s u c h a s los s t o
16
a d v e r t i s i n g r e v e n ue , ha r m t o e x i s t i n g l i c e n s i n g a g r e e me n t s , a n d l o s s o f
c o n t r o l o v e r t he d i s s e mi n a t i o n o f c o p y r i g ht e d wo r ks c a n , un d e r c e r t a i n
c i r c ums t a n c e s , c o n s t i t ut e i r r e p a r a b l e ha r m.") ( c i t i n g Fo x T e l e v i s i o n S t a t i o n s ,
I n c . v . B a ~ r y D r i l l e ~ Co n t e n t S y s ., PLC, 915 F. S up p . 2d l l 38, 1147 ( C.D .
Ca l . 2012); Wa r n e r B r o s . En t m't , I n c . v . WT V S y s ., I n c ., 824 F. S up p . 2d
1003, 1012 ( C.D . Ca l . 2011)). A d d i t i o n a l l y , t he c o ur t o b s e r v e d t ha t t he
"S e c o n d Ci r c ui t ha s a l s o fo un d t ha t s i mi l a r i n t a n g i b l e i n j ur i e s c a n s up p o r t t he
i s s ua n c e o f a p r e l i mi n a r y i n j un c t i o n ." I d . ( c i t i n g WPI X, I n c . v . i v i , I n c ., 691
F.3d 275, 285-86 ( 2d Ci r . 2012)).
No n e t he l e s s , t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t p ur p o r t e d t o d i s t i n g ui s h e a c h o f t ho s e
d e c i s i o n s o n t he g r o un d t ha t "[ i ] n t ho s e c a s e s . . .t he d e fe n d a n t s ha d n o
p r e e x i s t i n g b us i n e s s r e l a t i o n s hi p wi t h Fo x ." ER 307-309 ( Or d e r a t 10-12). I n
o t he r wo r d s , b e c a us e Fo x ha d p r e v i o us l y g r a n t e d D i s h a n a r r o w l i c e n s e t o
t e l e v i s e t he Fo x Pr o g r a ms v i a D i s h's s a t e l l i t e t e l e v i s i o n s e r v i c e , t he d i s t r i c t
c o ur t c o n c l ud e d t ha t D i s h ma y n o w e x c e e d t he s c o p e o f i t s l i c e n s e a n d e x p l o i t
Fo x 's p r o g r a mmi n g i n v i o l a t i o n o f t ha t l i c e n s e wi t ho ut b e i n g e n j o i n e d .
T he d i s t r i c t c o ur t a l s o n o t e d Fo x 's c o n c e r n t ha t b e c a us e D i s h's I n t e r n e t
s t r e a mi n g a n d fi l e-c o p y i n g s e r v i c e s we r e un l i c e n s e d , Fo x ha d n o wa y t o
e n s ur e t ha t i t s v a l ua b l e p r o g r a ms we r e b e i n g p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t p i r a c y a n d
s e c ur i t y r i s ks . ER 309 ( Or d e r a t 12). Ye t t he c o ur t b r us he d o ff t he s e
17
concerns a s sp ecu l a t i v e b eca u se of D i sh ' s non- b i nd i ng a ssu ra nces t h a t i t i s
p rot ect i ng Fox' s v a l u a b l e works from p i ra cy . ER 309- 310 (Ord er a t 12 - 13) .
Fi na l l y , t h e cou rt recog ni z ed t h a t D i sh ' s new, u na u t h ori z ed serv i ces a re
not cu rrent l y mea su red b y C3, t h e met ri c rel i ed on b y a d v ert i sers wh en
v a l u i ng commerci a l a d v ert i si ng t i me on t el ev i si on. Y et , ev en t h ou g h D i sh ' s
serv i ces p resent l y u nd ermi ne t h e mea su rement of commerci a l v i ewi ng on t h e
Fox Net work, t h e d i st ri ct cou rt d i smi ssed t h e need for i nj u nct i v e rel i ef
b eca u se Ni el sen h a s su p p osed l y ma d e a "p l ed g e" t o mod i fy i t s mea su ri ng
sy st em a t some u nd i scl osed t i me i n t h e fu t u re. ER 310 (Ord er a t 13) .
Recog ni z i ng t h e sp ecu l a t i v e na t u re of Ni el sen' s "p l ed g e" t o mea su re onl i ne
t el ev i si on st rea mi ng , t h e d i st ri ct cou rt nev ert h el ess concl u d ed t h a t "i t st rong l y
su g g est s t h a t t h e ent i t i es t h a t g a t h er a d v ert i si ng d a t a a re rea d y a nd wi l l i ng t o
a d a p t t o t h e new l a nd sca p e. " ER 310 (Ord er a t 13) . Th u s, i n t h e d i st ri ct
cou rt ' s v i ew, ev en i f Fox wi l l b e h a rmed i n some i nca l cu l a b l e wa y b et ween
now a nd t h e t i me of t ri a l , a n i nj u nct i on i s not wa rra nt ed b eca u se t h ose h a rms
mi g h t not cont i nu e forev er.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Ot h er d i st ri ct a nd a p p el l a t e cou rt s t h a t h a v e a d d ressed u na u t h ori z ed
I nt ernet st rea mi ng a nd d i st ri b u t i on of Fox' s t el ev i si on p rog ra ms h a v e
rep ea t ed l y fou nd a t h rea t of i rrep a ra b l e h a rm t o Fox. Nonet h el ess, t h e d i st ri ct
18
c o u z- t h e r e b e l i e v e d t h a t b e c a u se Fo x h a s a n e xi st i ng l i c e nsi ng r e l a t i o nsh i p
w i t h Di sh a nd a l so l i c e nse s i t s p r o g r a mmi ng t o o t h e r d i st r i b u t o r s, a l l o f Fo x's
i nj u r i e s a r e ne c e ssa r i l y q u a nt i fi a b l e . Th e c o u r t e ffe c t i v e l y r u l e d t h a t
c o p y r i g h t o w ne r s w h o e xp l o i t t h e i r w o r ks a r e no l o ng e r e nt i t l e d t o i nt e r i m
i nj u nc t i v e r e l i e f. Th i s w a s l e g a l e r r o r .
Th e d i st r i c t c o u r t 's r u l i ng i g no r e s t h e Su p r e me C o u r t 's i nst r u c t i o n t h a t
c a t e g o r i c a l r u l e s sh o u l d ne v e r b e a p p l i e d i n a n i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m a na l y si s. I t
a l so c o nfl i c t s (1) w i t h t h e l a w o f t h i s C i r c u i t t h a t e xc e e d i ng t h e sc o p e o f a
c o p y r i g h t l i c e nse i s c o p y r i g h t i nfr i ng e me nt , a nd (2) w i t h t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t 's
e xp r e ss a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f i nj u nc t i v e r e l i e f a s a r e me d y fo r i nfr i ng e me nt . By
fo r e c l o si ng i nj u nc t i v e r e l i e f a s a r e me d y t o c o p y r i g h t o w ne r s w h o su e t h e i r
i nfr i ng i ng l i c e nse e s, t h e c o u r t e r r o ne o u sl y i mp o se d a d e fa c t o c o mp u l so r y
l i c e nse t h a t i s no t a u t h o r i z e d b y st a t u t e .
Th e d i st r i c t c o u r t a l so e r r e d b y fi nd i ng t h a t b e c a u se Fo x l i c e nse s
I nt e r ne t st r e a mi ng a nd o t h e r d i st r i b u t i o n r i g h t s t o t h i r d p a r t i e s, t h e h a r ms
fr o m Di sh 's u na u t h o r i z e d e xp l o i t a t i o n o f t h e Fo x Pr o g r a ms a r e , a s a ma t t e r o f
l a w , q u a nt i fi a b l e . Bu t Fo x i s no t a r g u i ng t h a t i t s i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m st e ms fr o m
u np a i d r o y a l t i e s; Fo x i s i r r e p a r a b l y i nj u r e d b e c a u se i t h a s l o st i t s fu nd a me nt a l
r i g h t t o e xc l u d e Di sh fr o m u nl i c e nse d e xp l o i t a t i o n o f t h e Fo x Pr o g r a ms,
19
i n c l u d i n g i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h a u t h o r i z e d u s e s by o t h e r , l i c e n s e d
d i s t r i bu t o r s .
Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o a p p l i e d a n e r r o n e o u s l e g a l s t a n d a r d by
d i s m i s s i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f kn o w l e d g e a bl e Fo x e xe c u t i v e s a s s p e c u l a t i v e . I t
fo u n d t h a t Fo x fa i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h t h a t i t s bu s i n e s s w a s " a l r e a d y h a r m e d " o r
t h a t t h e r e w a s a n y t h r e a t o f h a r m " be yo n d t h e w o r d o f i t s e xe c u t i v e s . " ER
311 (Or d e r a t 14 ) . Bu t p r o o f o f a c t u a l h a r m o r c e r t a i n t y o f fu t u r e h a r m i s n o t
r e q u i r e d fo r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . A p l a i n t i ff n e e d o n l y s h o w a
" s i g n i fi c a n t r i s k" o f h a r m , a n d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g s p e c u l a t i v e a bo u t e xe c u t i v e s '
fi r s t - h a n d t e s t i m o n y e xp l a i n i n g h o w t h e i r bu s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be
u n d e r m i n e d by t h e d e fe n d a n t ' s i l l e g a l c o n d u c t . I f Fo x w e r e r e q u i r e d t o w a i t
u n t i l a l l o f i t s i n j u r i e s a c t u a l l y m a t e r i a l i z e d , t h a t w o u l d d e fe a t t h e p u r p o s e o f a
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n .
Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o e r r e d by r e l yi n g o n fa c t u a l fi n d i n g s t h a t a r e
i l l o g i c a l , i m p l a u s i bl e , a n d n o t s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e . Fo x' s e xe c u t i v e a n d
i n d u s t r y v e t e r a n , S h e r r y Br e n n a n , t e s t i fi e d t h a t i f Di s h i s a l l o w e d t o c o n t i n u e
s t r e a m i n g Fo x' s p r o g r a m s o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t be t w e e n n o w a n d t r i a l , o t h e r
l i c e n s e d d i s t r i bu t o r s w i l l d e m a n d c o n c e s s i o n s i n t h e i r u p c o m i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s
w i t h Fo x t o m i t i g a t e t h e r i s k o f l o s i n g s u bs c r i be r s t o Di s h . Th i s w i l l
n e g a t i v e l y i m p a c t Fo x' s bu s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d n e g o t i a t i o n s i n w a ys t h a t
20
cannot be q u anti f i ed . Other cou rts have rel i ed on the s ame ex act evi d ence
when enj oi ni ng u nau thori z ed I nternet s treami ng of Fox 's p rog rams . Yet the
d i s tri ct cou rt here as s u med that becau s e Fox l i cens es I nternet s treami ng ri g hts
to thi rd p arti es , i ts i nj u ri es are al l cal cu l abl e. T hi s was cl ear error becau s e the
threat to thi rd- p arty rel ati ons hi p s i s a d i f f erent harm than the l os s of l i cens e
f ees Di s h mi g ht have been req u i red to p ay Fox . Wi thou t ex p l anati on, the
cou rt al s o i g nored the d ecl arati on of Mi chael B i ard , the Fox ex ecu ti ve who
l ead s Fox 's neg oti ati ons wi th d i s tri bu tors . T hi s was cl ear error i n and of
i ts el f .
L as tl y , the d i s tri ct cou rt erred i n f i nd i ng no threat of i rrep arabl e harm to
Fox 's commerci al ad verti s i ng bu s i nes s . I t i s u nd i s p u ted that ad verti s ers rel y
on N i el s en's "C3" metri c to q u anti f y how many p eop l e watch ad verti s ements
d u ri ng a Fox Prog ram and to d etermi ne how mu ch to p ay f or thos e ad s . I t i s
al s o u nd i s p u ted that C3 d oes not meas u re vi ewers hi p of Di s h's new,
u nl i cens ed s ervi ces . T hu s , Di s h's cond u ct neces s ari l y threatens Fox 's
commerci al ad verti s i ng bu s i nes s . N onethel es s , the cou rt d i s cou nted thes e
i nj u ri es on the g rou nd s that comp ani es other than N i el s en of f er s ervi ces that
meas u re I nternet s treami ng . Even i f tru e, thi s i s i rrel evant becau s e C3
whi ch d oes not meas u re Di s h's new s ervi ces i s what ad verti s ers rel y on.
T he d i s tri ct cou rt al s o rel i ed on the tri p l e hears ay of Di s h's ex p ert f or the
21
proposition th a t Nielsen h a s supposedly "pledged" to begin mea suring
I nternet strea ming a t some time in th e f uture. But a n unsupported,
specula tive promise a bout mea surements a dvertisers ma y not a ccept does
noth ing to curb th e imminent th rea t Fox f a ces between now a nd th e time of
tria l.
ARGUMENT
I . Sta nda rd of Review
To preva il on a motion f or a prelimina ry inj unction, th e mova nt must
sh ow th a t it "is lik ely to succeed on th e merits, th a t [ it] is lik ely to suf f er
irrepa ra ble h a rm in th e a bsence of prelimina ry relief , th a t th e ba la nce of
eq uities tips in [ its] f a vor, a nd th a t a n inj unction is in th e public interest. "
Winter v. Na tuNa l Res. Def . Council, I nc. 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008).
Alterna tively, a n inj unction sh ould issue if th ere a re "serious q uestions going
to th e merits" a nd a "ba la nce of h a rdsh ips th a t tips sh a rply towa rds th e
pla intif f ," so long a s th e pla intif f "a lso sh ows th a t th ere is a lik elih ood of
irrepa ra ble inj ury a nd th a t th e inj unction is in th e public interest. " Allia nce
f or th e Wild Rock ies v. Cottf ~ ell, 632 F. 3d 1127, 1134-35 (9 th Cir. 2011). Th is
sta nda rd a pplies to inj unction motions a rising f rom both copyrigh t a nd brea ch
of contra ct cla ims. I t is well esta blish ed th a t a prelimina ry inj unction ma y
issue to prevent a brea ch of contra ct pa rticula rly wh ere, a s h ere, th e contra ct
22
i s governed by New York law, whi ch p erm i t s i nj u nct i ve reli ef i n breach-of-
cont ract cas es . S ee, e. g. , Wi s dom Im p ort S ales Co. v. Labat t Brewi ng Co. ,
339 F. 3d 101, 107-08 (2d Ci r. 2003).
An order denyi ng a p reli m i nary i nj u nct i on i s revi ewed f or abu s e of
di s cret i on. As s oci at ed Pres s v. O t t er, 682 F. 3d 821, 824 (9t h Ci r. 2012). In
deci di ng whet her t he di s t ri ct cou rt has abu s ed i t s di s cret i on, t he Cou rt revi ews
legal i s s u es de novo and f i ndi ngs of f act f or clear error. Id. "A deci s i on
bas ed on an erroneou s legal s t andard or a clearly erroneou s f i ndi ng of f act
am ou nt s t o an abu s e of di s cret i on. " Id. (q u ot i ng Pi m ent al v. Dreyf u s , 670
F. 3d 1096, 1105 (9t h Ci r. 2012)).
II. The Di s t ri ct Cou rt Ap p li ed An Erroneou s Legal S t andard
Regardi ng The Irrep arable Harm Elem ent O f The Preli m i nary
Inj u nct i on Tes t .
The di s t ri ct cou rt correct ly obs erved t hat , f ollowi ng t he S u p rem e
Cou rt ' s deci s i ons i n eBay v. MercExchange, L. L. C. , 547 U. S . 388 (2006), and
Wi nt er v. Nat u ral Res . Def . Cou nci l, 555 U. S . 7 (2008), t he Ni nt h Ci rcu i t now
req u i res t hat a p lai nt i f f i n a cop yri ght i nf ri ngem ent cas e m u s t s at i s f y t he
t radi t i onal f ou r-f act or t es t em p loyed by cou rt s of eq u i t y f or i nj u nct i ons . S ee
ER 304 (O rder at 7); Flexi ble Li f eli ne S ys . v. Preci s i on Li f t , Inc. , 654 F. 3d
989, 998 (9t h Ci r. 2011). As exp lai ned below, i n i t s z eal t o ap p ly eBay,
however, t he di s t ri ct cou rt ef f ect i vely creat ed cat egori cal ru les of law t hat wi ll
23
d i s q u a l i f y f rom i n t e ri m i n j u n c t i v e re l i e f a n y c op y ri g h t own e r t h a t h a s
e x p l oi t e d i t s works t h rou g h l i c e n s i n g a g re e me n t s wi t h t h i rd p a rt i e s or t h rou g h
a c on t ra c t wi t h t h e a l l e g e d i n f ri n g e r, e v e n on e t h a t e x p re s s l y p roh i b i t s t h e
i n f ri n g i n g c on d u c t a t i s s u e .
Be c a u s e t h e d i s t ri c t c ou rt ' s ov e r- re a d i n g of e Ba y wou l d d e p ri v e e n t i re
c l a s s e s of c op y ri g h t own e rs f rom me a n i n g f u l i n j u n c t i v e re l i e f b e f ore t ri a l , t h i s
Cou rt s h ou l d re v e rs e t h e d i s t ri c t c ou rt ' s d e c i s i on a n d re s t ore t h e p rop e r
b a l a n c e t o t h e t ra d i t i on a l e q u i t a b l e s t a n d a rd f or t h e g ra n t i n g of p re l i mi n a ry
i n j u n c t i on s i n c op y ri g h t c a s e s .
A. Th e Su p re me Cou rt In e Ba y Con d e mn e d Th e Ki n d Of
Ca t e g ori c a l Ap p roa c h Emp l oy e d By Th e D i s t ri c t Cou rt .
In e Ba y , t h e Su p re me Cou rt re j e c t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i on of c a t e g ori c a l ru l e s
e i t h e r a g a i n s t or i n f a v or of i n j u n c t i on s , s e e i n g s u c h ru l e s a s i n c omp a t i b l e
wi t h t h e t ra d i t i on a l f ou r- f a c t or t e s t " h i s t ori c a l l y e mp l oy e d b y c ou rt s of
e q u i t y . " 547 U. S. a t 390, 393- 94. In t h a t c a s e , t h e h ol d e r of a b u s i n e s s
me t h od p a t e n t f or a n e l e c t ron i c ma rke t p l a c e s u e d e Ba y f or p a t e n t
i n f ri n g e me n t . Af t e r a j u ry f ou n d t h a t e Ba y h a d i n f ri n g e d t h e p a t e n t , t h e
d i s t ri c t c ou rt d e c l i n e d t o i s s u e a p e rma n e n t i n j u n c t i on , b a s e d on i t s c on c l u s i on
t h a t a " p l a i n t i f f ' s wi l l i n g n e s s t o l i c e n s e i t s p a t e n t s " a n d i t s " l a c k of
c omme rc i a l a c t i v i t y i n p ra c t i c i n g t h e p a t e n t s " wou l d b e s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h
t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f wou l d n ot s u f f e r i rre p a ra b l e h a rm i n t h e a b s e n c e of a n
i n j u n c t i o n . See i d . a t 393 ( q u o t i n g 275 F. Su pp. 2d 695, 712 ( E. D. Va .
? 0 0 3) ) . The Fed er a l C i r c u i t r ev er s ed , a ppl y i n g wha t i t t er med t he " g en er a l
r u l e t ha t c o u r t s wi l l i s s u e per ma n en t i n j u n c t i o n s a g a i n s t pa t en t i n f r i n g emen t
a b s en t ex c ept i o n a l c i r c u ms t a n c es . " I d . a t 391 ( q u o t i n g eBa y , I n c . v .
Mer c Ex c ha n g e, LLC , 40 1 F. 3d 1323, 1339 ( Fed . C i r . 20 0 5) ) .
The Su pr eme C o u r t hel d t ha t n ei t her t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o r t he a ppel l a t e
c o u r t ha d " f a i r l y a ppl i ed [ t he] t r a d i t i o n a l eq u i t a b l e pr i n c i pl es " r eg a r d i n g
i n j u n c t i v e r el i ef . 547 U. S. a t 393. The C o u r t c r i t i c i z ed t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r
" a d o p[ t i n g ] c er t a i n ex pa n s i v e pr i n c i pl es s u g g es t i n g t ha t i n j u n c t i v e r el i ef
c o u l d n o t i s s u e i n a b r o a d s wa t h o f c a s es . " I d . The C o u r t ex pl a i n ed t ha t
" t r a d i t i o n a l eq u i t a b l e pr i n c i pl es d o n o t per mi t s u c h b r o a d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s " a n d
hel d t ha t t o t he ex t en t t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t ha d a d o pt ed s u c h a " c a t eg o r i c a l r u l e,"
i t s a n a l y s i s " c a n n o t b e s q u a r ed wi t h t he pr i n c i pl es o f eq u i t y a d o pt ed b y
C o n g r es s [ i n t he P a t en t A c t ] . " I d . The Su pr eme C o u r t t hen c r i t i c i z ed t he
Fed er a l C i r c u i t f o r " d epa r t [ i n g ] i n t he o ppo s i t e d i r ec t i o n " f r o m t he f o u r- f a c t o r
t es t b y a ppl y i n g a pr es u mpt i o n i n f a v o r o f i n j u n c t i v e r el i ef : " J u s t a s t he
Di s t r i c t C o u r t er r ed i n i t s c a t eg o r i c a l d en i a l o f i n j u n c t i v e r el i ef , t he C o u r t o f
A ppea l s er r ed i n i t s c a t eg o r i c a l g r a n t o f s u c h r el i ef . " I d . a t 393- 94.
I n a c o n c u r r i n g o pi n i o n , C hi ef J u s t i c e R o b er t s , j o i n ed b y J u s t i c es Sc a l i a
a n d Gi n s b u r g , empha s i z ed t ha t t he C o u r t ' s d ec i s i o n d i d n o t mea n t ha t d i s t r i c t
25
c o u r t s wer e l ef t t o wr i t e o n a "c l ean s l at e" i n appl yi ng t h e f o u r- f ac t o r
eq u i t ab l e t es t . "D i s c r et i o n i s no t a wh i m," t h e Ch i ef J u s t i c e ad v i s ed , "and
l i mi t i ng d i s c r et i o n ac c o r d i ng t o l egal s t and ar d s h el ps pr o mo t e t h e b as i c
pr i nc i pl e o f j u s t i c e t h at l i k e c as es s h o u l d b e d ec i d ed al i k e. " 547 U. S. at 395
(q u o t i ng Mar t i n v . Fr ank l i n Capi t al Co pp. , 546 U. S. 132, 139 (2005)).
No t i ng t h at s i nc e at l eas t t h e ear l y ni net eent h c ent u r y, c o u r t s h av e
gr ant ed i nj u nc t i v e r el i ef u po n a f i nd i ng o f i nf r i ngement i n t h e "v as t maj o r i t y
o f pat ent c as es ," t h e Ch i ef J u s t i c e o b s er v ed t h at , wh i l e t h i s "l o ng t r ad i t i o n o f
eq u i t y pr ac t i c e" may no t ent i t l e a pr ev ai l i ng pl ai nt i f f t o a per manent
i nj u nc t i o n, i t nev er t h el es s s h o u l d i nf o r m t h e appl i c at i o n o f t h e eq u i t ab l e t es t
"gi v en t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f pr o t ec t i ng a r i gh t t o exc l u d e t h r o u gh mo net ar y
r emed i es . " I d . at 395 (emph as i s i n o r i gi nal ). "[ I ] n t h i s ar ea as o t h er s ," t h e
Ch i ef J u s t i c e c o nc l u d ed , "`a page o f h i s t o r y i s wo r t h a v o l u me o f l o gi c . " I d .
(q u o t i ng New Yo r k T r u s t v . Ei s ner , 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (Ho l mes , J . )).
T h i s Co u r t and o t h er c i r c u i t s h av e no w h el d t h at eBay appl i es i n
c o pyr i gh t c as es . See, e. g. , Fl exi b l e L i f el i ne , 654 F. 3d at 998 (c o l l ec t i ng
c as es ); Sal i nge~ v . Co l t i ng, 607 F. 3d 68, 81 (2d Ci r . 2010); s ee al s o Her b
Reed Ent er s . v . Fl o r i d a Ent m't Mgt . , 2013 WL 6224288, at *8 (9t h Ci r . D ec .
2, 2013) (h o l d i ng t h at eBay appl i es t o i nj u nc t i o ns i n t r ad emar k c as es ).
26
In Salinge~, t h e Second C ir cu it u nder t ook a car ef u l analy s is of t h e
impact of eBay on pr eliminar y inj u nct ions in copy r igh t cas es . Th e Salinge~
cou r t conclu ded t h at t h e h is t or ical pr act ice f avor ing pr eliminar y inj u nct ions in
copy r igh t cas es s h ou ld s t ill inf or m t r ial cou r t s ' decis ions in lar ge par t
becau s e copy r igh t u lt imat ely involves a " r igh t t o exclu de" and cou r t s
t r adit ionally h ave r ecognized " ` t h e dif f icu lt y of pr ot ect ing a r igh t t o exclu de
t h r ou gh monet ar y r emedies . " ' See 607 F. 3d at 82 (qu ot ing eBay , 547 U. S. at
395 (Rober t s , J . , concu r r ing) ) . Accor dingly , t h e Salinger cou r t advis ed t h at ,
even wit h ou t t h e f or mer pr es u mpt ion of ir r epar able h ar m, " [ a] s an empir ical
mat t er ," it " may well be t h e cas e" t h at " mos t copy r igh t plaint if f s wh o h ave
s h own a likelih ood of s u cces s on t h e mer it s wou ld . . . be ir r epar ably h ar med
abs ent pr eliminar y inj u nct ive r elief . " Id. at 82. Th e Salinger cou r t not ed t h at
" [ h ] ar m may be ir r emediable, or ir r epar able, f or many r eas ons , inclu ding t h at
a los s is dif f icu lt t o r eplace or dif f icu lt t o meas u r e, or t h at it is a los s t h at one
s h ou ld not be expect ed t o s u f f er . " Id. at 81. Th e cou r t f u r t h er not ed t h at s u ch
h ar m is par t icu lar ly likely t o ar is e in t h e cont ext of copy r igh t inf r ingement
claims , becau s e " t o pr ove t h e los s of s ales du e t o inf r ingement is .
not or iou s ly dif f icu lt . " Id. (qu ot ing Omega Impor t ing C or p. v. Pet r i-Kine
C af ne~a C o. , 451 F. 2d 1190, 1195 (2d C ir . 1971) (Fr iendly , C . J . ) ) .
27
In reaching the same conclusion about eBay's ap p lication to cop yright
cases, this Court cited Salinger with ap p roval and d iscussed at length the
Sup reme Court's warning in eBay against relying on categorical rules either
in favor of or against the granting of inj unctive relief. See F lex ible L ifeline,
654 F . 3d at 995, 998-99. Courts in this Circuit also have consistently
confirmed that the showing req uired of a p laintiff seeking inj unctive relief is
merely "a likelihood of irrep arable harm, " not the ex istence of manifest
current harm or a certainty of future harm. E . g. , id . at 998; Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Google, Inc. , 653 F . 3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2011); Wainer Bros. E ntm't Inc. v.
WTV Systems, Inc. , 824 F . Sup p . 2d 1003, 1012 (C. D. Cal. 2011).2
B. The District Court's Ruling That F ox 's Contractual
Relationship With Dish Preclud es F ox F rom E stablishing
Irrep arable Harm Is Precisely The Typ e Of Categorical Rule
The Sup reme Court Rej ected In eBay.
As d escribed above, the d istrict court recognized that harm to F ox 's
business relationship s with other d istributors, loss of control over the
d issemination of its cop yrighted works, and loss of ad vertising revenue all
2 This Court's recent d ecision in Herb Reed E nterp rises is also instructive.
The Court reversed the granting of an inj unction where the d istrict court mad e
no factual find ings at all, and its analysis of irrep arable harm was not
"ground ed in any evid ence or showing offered by [ the p laintiffJ . " Id . at *8-9.
This Court nevertheless mad e clear that a p laintiff need only show "likely, "
not certain, irrep arable harm, and reaffirmed that "[ e]vid ence of loss of
control over business rep utation and d amage to good will could constitute
irrep arable harm. " Id . at *8 (citing Stuhlba~g Intl Sales Co. v. J ohn D. Bush
& Co. , 240 F . 3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001)).
~r
would q ua li f y a s i r r e p a r a b le ha r m unde r we ll- se t t le d p r e c e de nt s. S e e , sup r a ,
S t a t e me nt of F a c t s, P a r t G; se e a lso ER 305 (Or de r a t 8 ) . But t he c our t t he n
he ld t hose r ule s i na p p li c a b le t o F ox b e c a use F ox ha s a n e xi st i ng c ont r a c t ua l
r e la t i onshi p wi t h D i sh. ER 307- 309 (Or de r a t 1 0- 1 2 ) . T hi s i s a non se q ui t ur .
T he f a c t t ha t F ox a nd D i sh a r e p a r t i e s t o t he RT C Ag r e e me nt , f or e xa mp le ,
doe s not hi ng t o p r e v e nt t he p ot e nt i a l ha r m t ha t F ox ha s i de nt i f i e d t o i t s
r e la t i onshi p s wi t h ot he r t e le v i si on di st r i b ut or s a nd ot he r li c e nse e s. I n
a ddi t i on, t he f a c t t ha t t he p a r t i e s ha v e a c ont r a c t ua l r e la t i onshi p doe s not
me a n t ha t t he ha r m c a use d b y t he de f e nda nt ' s i nf r i ng e me nt ne c e ssa r i ly i s
e a si ly c a lc ula b le b a se d on t he c ont r a c t . He r e , t he c ont r a c t ua l r e la t i onshi p
f la t ly p r ohi b i t s t he e xp loi t a t i on of t he r i g ht s a t i ssue . S i mi la r ly , D i sh' s
una ut hor i z e d st r e a mi ng of F ox' s c op y r i g ht e d wor ks t o I nt e r ne t de v i c e s
p r e v e nt s F ox f r om e xe r c i si ng a ny c ont r ol b y wa y of c ont r a c t ua l p r ov i si ons
t ha t c ould e nsur e c omp li a nc e wi t h st r i c t a nt i- p i r a c y a nd se c ur i t y p r oc e dur e s.
Mor e f unda me nt a lly , t he di st r i c t c our t ' s a p p r oa c h e f f e c t i v e ly mov e s t he
g oa lp ost s f or a n e nt i r e c a t e g or y of c op y r i g ht p la i nt i f f s t hose t ha t li c e nse
t he i r wor ks or ha v e c ont r a c t ua l a g r e e me nt s wi t h t he a lle g e d i nf r i ng e r . By
t hus ma ki ng i nj unc t i v e r e li e f una v a i la b le i n "a b r oa d swa t h of c a se s, " t he
di st r i c t c our t di d e xa c t ly wha t t he S up r e me Cour t c a ut i one d a g a i nst i n e Ba y .
2 9
Nothing in the Copyright Act or e x is ting ca s e la w s u pports s u ch a ru le .
To the contra ry, the s ta tu te e x pre s s ly prov id e s f or inj u nctiv e re lie f . Se e 17
U. S. C. 5 0 2 ( a ) . And it is s e ttle d la w in this Circu it tha t a pa rty to a
contra ctu a l lice ns e a gre e me nt ma y be f ou nd lia ble f or copyright inf ringe me nt
whe re it e x ce e d s the s cope of its gra nte d rights . Se e , e . g. , Su n Micros ys te ms ,
I nc. v . Micros of t Copp. , 188 F. 3d 1115 , 112 1 ( 9 th Cir. 19 9 9 ) ( " [ i] f . . . a
lice ns e is limite d in s cope a nd the lice ns e e a cts ou ts id e the s cope , the lice ns or
ca n bring a n a ction f or copyright inf ringe me nt" ) ; s e e a ls o MDYlnd u s . , LLC v .
B liz z a rd E ntm' t, I nc. , 62 9 F. 3d 9 2 8, 9 39 -41 ( 9 th Cir. 2 0 10 ) ; LGS Archite cts ,
I nc. v . Concord ia Home s of Ne v . , 434 F. 3d 115 0 , 115 4-5 7 ( 9 th Cir. 2 0 0 6) ;
Fra nk Mu s ic CoNp. v . Me tro-Gold wyn-Ma ye r, I nc. , 772 F. 2 d 5 0 5 , 5 11 ( 9 th
Cir. 19 85 ) .
B y f ore clos ing pre limina ry inj u nctiv e re lie f f or copyright owne rs who
s u e the ir lice ns e e s f or copyright inf ringe me nt a nd f or bre a ch of the ir lice ns e
a gre e me nts , the d is trict cou rt a ls o impos e d a d e f a cto compu ls ory lice ns e ,
pe rmitting the d e f e nd a nt to inf ringe throu gh tria l a pe riod tha t cou ld la s t
months or e v e n ye a rs with only the cons e qu e nce tha t it might ha v e to ma ke
a pa yme nt of s ome s ort a t the conclu s ion of the ca s e . Compu ls ory lice ns e s ,
howe v e r, a re ra re u nd e r copyright la w a nd his torica lly ha v e be e n impos e d
only by Congre s s in the f orm of d e ta ile d a nd ca re f u lly ca libra te d s ta tu tory
30
schemes. See, e.g ., 17 U.S.C. 111, 115, 118, 119, 122; Harper &Row
P u b l i shers, I n c. v . Nati on E n ters., 471 U.S. 539, 569 (1985) ("Con g ress has
n ot desi g n ed, an d we see n o warran t f or j u di ci al l y i mposi n g , a `compu l sory
l i cen se."' ); see al so 4 M. Ni mmer & D. Ni mmer, NI MME R ON COP YRI GHT
13.05 (2013) (n oti n g that j u di ci al l y created compu l sory l i cen ses are
exceedi n g l y rare).
C. The Di stri ct Cou rt' s Ru l i n g That Fox Can n ot E stab l i sh
I rreparab l e Harm Becau se I t Has Li cen sed I ts Works To
Ot{ i e~ Di stri b u tors I s Al so The Ty pe Of Categ ori cal Ru l e The
Su preme Cou rt Rej ected I n eBay .
The di stri ct cou rt al so hel d Fox cou l d n ot estab l i sh l i kel y i rreparab l e
i n j u ry b ased on ev i den ce of harm to i ts rel ati on shi ps wi th other di stri b u tors of
i ts prog rammi n g v i a I n tern et streami n g an d down l oads, su ch as i Tu n es an d
Amazon , b ecau se those ag reemen ts mi g ht prov i de "b en chmarks" f or
cal cu l ati n g damag es. E R 308 (Order at 11). Thi s an al y si s compl etel y
mi sapprehen ds Fox' s posi ti on . Fox di d n ot arg u e that Di sh An y where an d
Hopper Tran sf ers cau se i rreparab l e i n j u ry i n the f orm of u n pai d roy al ti es
i n deed, the n ew Di sh serv i ces at i ssu e were expressl y prohi b i ted u n der the
ag reemen t. I n stead, Fox demon strated that Di sh, b y of f eri n g a competi n g
u n l i cen sed serv i ce to i ts su b scri b ers, i s dev al u i n g the ri g hts to Fox' s
prog rammi n g , whi ch wi l l n eg ati v el y i mpact Fox' s f u tu re n eg oti ati on s wi th
poten ti al l i cen sees. E R 236; see al so Barry Dri l l e~ , 915 F. Su pp. 2d at 11.47
31
( o f f e r i n g an u n au t h o r i z e d s e r v i c e t h at i s d i r e c t l y s u b s t i t u t ab l e f o r t h e s e r v i c e s
o f f e r e d b y Fo x's l e g i t i m at e l i c e n s e e s p u t s " p r e s s u r e o n t h o s e l i c e n s i n g
r e l at i o n s h i p s " ) . As s h o wn b y t h e B i ar d an d B r e n n an D e c l ar at i o n s s u b m i t t e d
b y Fo x, t h e s e h ar m s t o l i c e n s e n e g o t i at i o n s c an n o t b e m e as u r e d o r
r e c o m p e n s e d b y r e f e r e n c e t o r o y al t y r at e s o r o t h e r m o n e t ar y t e r m s i n e xi s t i n g
l i c e n s e ag r e e m e n t s . Se e ER 1802-1803, 233, 235-236.
I t s h o u l d b e b e y o n d d i s p u t e t h at b y l i c e n s i n g i t s p r o g r am s t o o t h e r s i n a
c ar e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d way , Fo x i s n o t wai v i n g i t s r i g h t t o e n j o i n c o p y r i g h t
i n f r i n g e m e n t . Se e , e . g . , C ap i t o l Re c o r d s , LLC v . Re D i g i , I n c . , 934 F. Su p p .
2d 640, 654 ( S. D . N. Y. 2013) ( c o p y r i g h t o wn e r " d o e s n o t f o r f e i t i t s r i g h t t o
c l ai m c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t m e r e l y b e c au s e i t p e r m i t s c e r t ai n u s e s o f i t s
wo r ks " ) . As t h e WPI X v . i v i d i s t r i c t c o u r t e m p h as i z e d i n a d e c i s i o n p r ai s e d
b y t h e Se c o n d C i r c u i t as " t h o r o u g h an d c ar e f u l l y [ ] c o n s i d e r e d ," 691 F. 3d at
278, t h e d e f e n d an t " c an n o t s e r i o u s l y ar g u e t h at t h e e xi s t e n c e o f t h o u s an d s o f
c o m p an i e s wh o l e g i t i m at e l y u s e p l ai n t i f f s ' p r o g r am m i n g an d p ay f u l l f r e i g h t
m e an s t h at i v i 's i l l e g al an d u n c o m p e n s at e d u s e d o e s n o t i r r e p ar ab l y h ar m
p l ai n t i f f s . " 765 F. Su p p . 2d 594, 619 ( S. D . N. Y. 2011) ( e m p h as i s i n o r i g i n al ) .
U l t i m at e l y , wh at i s at i s s u e i s Fo x's ab i l i t y as a c o p y r i g h t o wn e r t o
c o n t r o l h o w an d wh e n i t s wo r ks ar e d i s s e m i n at e d t o c o n s u m e r s . Th e
C o p y r i g h t Ac t g r an t s t h e c o p y r i g h t o wn e r t h e r i g h t t o l i c e n s e " an y
32
s u b d i v i s i o n " o f i t s e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s . 17 U. S. C. 2 0 1( d ) . Th o s e r i g h t s " may
b e c h o ppe d u p . . . n o mat t e r h o w s mal l . " Si l v e r s v . So n y P i c t u r e s En t m ' t ,
I n c . , 40 2 F . 3 d 881, 884, 887 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, as c o u r t s i n t h i s
Ci r c u i t h av e c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d , c o pyr i g h t o wn e r s l i k e F o x " h av e t h e
e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o d e c i d e wh e n , wh e r e , t o wh o m, an d fo r h o w mu c h t h e y wi l l
au t h o r i z e t r an s mi s s i o n o f t h e i r Co pyr i g h t e d Wo r k s t o t h e pu b l i c . " War n e
Br o s . En t m' t v . WTV Sys . , 82 4 F . Su pp. 2 d 10 0 3 , 10 12 ( C. D. Cal . 2 0 11)
( c i t at i o n s o mi t t e d ) . Th i s e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e man n e r i n wh i c h
c o pyr i g h t e d wo r k s ar e e x pl o i t e d c o mme r c i al l y i s an e x e r c i s e o f F o x ' s
fu n d ame n t al " r i g h t t o e x c l u d e " t h at i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e c o n c e pt o f c o pyr i g h t as
a pr o pe r t y r i g h t .3
A s t h e Se c o n d Ci r c u i t r e c o g n i z e d i n Sal i n g e r , i n t e r fe r i n g wi t h a
c o pyr i g h t o wn e r ' s ab i l i t y t o c o n t r o l t h e t i mi n g an d c h an n e l s o f d i s t r i b u t i o n fo r
i t s wo r k i n v ar i ab l y c au s e s i n j u r y t h at i s d i ffi c u l t t o q u an t i fy. 60 7 F . 3 d at 82
( n o t i n g t h at c o u r t s t r ad i t i o n al l y h av e r e c o g n i z e d " t h e d i ffi c u l t y o f pr o t e c t i n g a
r i g h t t o e x c l u d e t h r o u g h mo n e t ar y r e me d i e s " ) ( i n t e r n al q u o t at i o n an d c i t at i o n
o mi t t e d ) ; s e e al s o i d . at 81 ( i n fr i n g e me n t o f c o pyr i g h t o wn e r ' s " r i g h t n o t t o
3 Br o ad c as t t e l e v i s i o n i s n o t an al o g o u s t o a pi e c e o f t e c h n o l o g y wh e r e a
pat e n t o wn e r mi g h t l i c e n s e t h e s ame r i g h t s t o al l c o me r s fo r a s e t pr i c e . Th e
ab i l i t y o f a b r o ad c as t e r t o c o n t r o l t h e t i mi n g o f an d man n e r i n wh i c h i t s
pr o g r ams ar e d i s t r i b u t e d i s e s s e n t i al t o t h e b r o ad c as t t e l e v i s i o n b u s i n e s s
mo d e l b e c au s e i t i s t h e way i n wh i c h b r o ad c as t e r s g e n e r at e mu l t i pl e r e v e n u e
s t r e ams fr o m t h e i r c o n t e n t . ER 2 3 6-2 3 7 ( Br e n n an De c l . 2 5 -2 9 ) .
3 3
s p e a k , f o r e ve n minima l p e r io d s o f t ime , u nq u e s t io na b ly c o ns t it u t e s
ir r e p a r a b le inj u r y " ) ( int e r na l q u o t a t io ns a nd c it a t io ns o mit t e d ) . As t h e F e d e r a l
C ir c u it h a s e x p la ine d , " C o p y r igh t lic e ns e s a r e d e s igne d t o s u p p o r t t h e r igh t t o
e x c lu d e ; mo ne y d a ma ge s a lo ne d o no t s u p p o r t o r e nf o r c e t h a t r igh t . "
Ja c o b s e n v. K a t z e r , 535 F . 3d 1373, 1381-82 ( F e d . C ir . 20 0 8) .
Th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it h a s r e c o gniz e d in t h e a na lo go u s p a t e nt c o nt e x t t h a t
t h e a b s e nc e o f a p r e s u mp t io n o f ir r e p a r a b le h a r m d o e s no t me a n " t h a t c o u r t s
s h o u ld e nt ir e ly igno r e t h e f u nd a me nt a l na t u r e o f p a t e nt s a s p r o p e r t y r igh t s
gr a nt ing t h e o wne r t h e r igh t t o e x c lu d e . " Ro b e r t Bo s c h LLC v. Py lo n Mf g.
C o p p . , 659 F . 3d 1142, 1149 ( F e d . C ir . 20 11) . Ob s e r ving t h a t " t h e a x io ma t ic
r e me d y f o r t r e s p a s s o n p r o p e r t y r igh t s is r e mo va l o f t h e t r e s p a s s e r , " t h e
F e d e r a l C ir c u it h a s h e ld t h a t c o u r t s t h e r e f o r e s h o u ld b e gu id e d b y t h e
" h is t o r ic a l p r a c t ic e o f p r o t e c t ing t h e r igh t t o e x c lu d e t h r o u gh inj u nc t ive r e lie f
. . . give n t h e d if f ic u lt ie s o f p r o t e c t ing t h is r igh t s o le ly wit h mo ne t a r y r e lie f . "
Pr e s id io C o mp o ne nt s , I nc . v. Am. Te c h . C e r a mic s C o r p . , 70 2 F . 3d 1351, 1362
( F e d . C ir . 20 12) .4
4 I n t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t p r o c e e d ings , Dis h o b j e c t e d t h a t a ny c o ns id e r a t io n o f t h e
imp o r t a nc e o f a c o p y r igh t o wne r 's r igh t t o e x c lu d e wo u ld r e s u lt in a d e f a c t o
r e t u r n t o p r e s u ming ir r e p a r a b le h a r m. Bu t t h a t is p la inly inc o r r e c t . Th e r e a r e
ma ny s it u a t io ns wh e r e a c o p y r igh t o wne r migh t e s t a b lis h a lik e lih o o d o f
inf r inge me nt b u t b e u na b le t o s h o w lik e ly ir r e p a r a b le h a r m, s u c h a s ( 1) wh e r e
a lic e ns e e h a s inf r inge d b y e x c e e d ing t h e s c o p e o f it s lic e ns e b u t t h e
a gr e e me nt s p e lls o u t mo ne t a r y p e na lt ie s o r c o ns e q u e nt ia l d a ma ge s f o r s u c h
34
I n t h e c o p y r i g h t c o n t e x t , WTV Sy st e ms i s d i r e c t l y o n p o i n t . Th e r e , t h e
d e f e n d a n t s o p e r a t e d a n u n a u t h o r i z e d se r v i c e t h a t t r a n smi t t e d p l a i n t i f f s'
c o p y r i g h t e d mo v i e s o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t . 824 F. Su p p . 2d a t 1 0 0 5 - 0 8. Th e c o u r t
o bse r v e d t h a t " [ e ] a c h o f t h e P l a i n t i f f s h a s i t s o wn st r a t e g y f o r st r u c t u r i n g t h e i r
r e sp e c t i v e d i st r i bu t i o n wi n d o ws" f o r wh e n t h e i r mo t i o n p i c t u r e s a r e r e l e a se d
i n t h e a t e r s, o n c a bl e o r sa t e l l i t e t e l e v i si o n , o n VOD, o n l i n e , o r o n DVD, a n d
h e l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s, by p r e ma t u r e l y ma ki n g t h e P l a i n t i f f s' wo r ks
a v a i l a bl e on t h e I n t e r n e t wi t h o u t a u t h o r i z a t i o n , " i n t e r f e r e [ d ] wi t h P l a i n t i f f s'
a bi l i t y t o c o n t r o l t h e u se a n d t r a n smi ssi o n o f t h e i r C o p y r i g h t e d Wo r ks,
t h e r e by c a u si n g i r r e p a r a bl e i n j u r y t o P l a i n t i f f s. " I d . a t 1 0 0 6, 1 0 1 2- 1 3
(e mp h a si s a d d e d ) .
Re c o g n i z i n g t h e i mp o r t a n c e o f c o n t r o l i n t h i s se n se , c o u r t s a c r o ss t h e
c o u n t r y i n t h e p a st t wo y e a r s t h a t h a v e c o n si d e r e d se r v i c e s e n g a g e d i n
u n a u t h o r i z e d I n t e r n e t st r e a mi n g o f c o p y r i g h t e d wo r ks h a v e f o u n d i r r e p a r a bl e
h a r m ba se d o n t h e sa me ki n d s o f i n j u r i e s a n d t e st i mo n y t h a t Fo x ' s
e x e c u t i v e s p r o f f e r e d h e r e . Se e WP I X, I n c . v . i v i , I n c . , 691 F. 3d 275 , 286 (2d
C i r . 20 1 2) (" i v i " ) (br o a d c a st n e t wo r ks wo u l d be i r r e p a r a bl y h a r me d by
br e a c h ; (2) wh e r e a c o p y r i g h t o wn e r h a s e x p r e sse d a wi l l i n g n e ss t o l i c e n se i t s
wo r ks t o t h e wo r l d f o r f r e e a n d wi t h o u t r e st r i c t i o n ; (3) wh e r e t h e c o p y r i g h t
o wn e r h a s o f f e r e d t o l i c e n se i t s wo r ks a t a se t p r i c e t o a l l c o me r s (e . g . , e Ba y ,
I n c . v . Bi d d e r ' s Ed g e , I n c . , 1 0 0 F. Su p p . 2d 1 0 5 8, 1 0 67- 68 (N. D. C a l . 20 0 0 ) ) ;
o r (4) wh e r e t h e c o p y r i g h t o wn e r f a i l s t o p r o v i d e a n y e v i d e n c e o f h a r m (e . g . ,
He r b Re e d En t e r s. , 20 1 3 WL 6224288, a t * 8- 9) .
35
unauthorized I nternet streaming serv ic e) ; Fox T el ev ision S tations, I nc . v .
Fil mOn X LLC, - - F. S upp. 2d - - , 2012 WL 4763414, at * 15- 16 (D. D. C. S ept.
5, 2013) , appeal doc keted, No. 13- 7146 (D. C. Cir. S ept. 20, 2013)
("Fil mOn") (same) ; Fox T el ev ision S tations, I nc . v . B arry Dril l er Content
S y s. , 915 F. S upp. 2d 1138, 1147 (C. D. Cal . Dec . 27, 2012) , appeal doc keted
sub nom. , Fox T el ev ision S tations, I nc . v . A ereokil l er, LLC, Nos. 13- 55156,
13- 55157 (9th Cir. J an. 25, 2013) ("B arr~ y Dril l er") (same) .
Final l y , the distric t c ourt al so rej ec ted Fox's l oss- of- c ontrol argument
by inv oking the parties' c ontrac tual rel ationship, noting that "onl y pay ing
Dish subsc ribers c an ac c ess the S erv ic es. " ER 309 (Order at 12) . T his is
doubl y erroneous. First, it c l aims to address onl y one possibl e ty pe of harm
from l oss of c ontrol namel y , the inabil ity to stop ongoing, v iral pirac y of
c opy righted c ontent on the I nternet. A s expl ained abov e, there is muc h more
to a c opy right owner's exerc ise of c ontrol ov er its works, suc h as the right to
c hoose some l ic ensees and exc l ude others, and the right to dec ide where,
when, and how its c opy righted works are expl oited. T he distric t c ourt
c ompl etel y ov erl ooked this point.
S ec ond, the c ourt's referenc e to the RT C A greement undersc ores the
non- monetary nature of the harm c aused by Dish's infringement bec ause Dish
is engaging in prec isel y the c onduc t that Fox sought to c ontrol (and prohibit)
through e x p re s s , nonmone tary te rms s e t f orth i n the RTC Agre e me nt,
i nc l ud i ng the ob l i gati on that Di s h
, and the
ob l i gati on not to authori z e s ub s c ri b e rs to c op y Fox Programs f or vi e wi ng
outs i d e the home ( the No-Cop yi ng Cl aus e ) . Se e , s up ra, State me nt of Fac ts ,
Parts D, F.
D. By Tre ati ng Fox 's Te s ti mony Ab out Future Harm As
Sp e c ul ati ve , The Di s tri c t Court Imp os e d A He i ghte ne d
Stand ard For Inj unc ti ve Re l i e f That De p arts From The
Trad i ti onal Equi tab l e Rul e .
As the d i s tri c t c ourt ac knowl e d ge d i n i ts O rd e r, a s howi ng of p re s e nt
ac tual harm i s not ne c e s s ary to s ati s f y the i rre p arab l e harm re qui re me nt f or
i nj unc ti ve re l i e f . Nor i s a c e rtai nty of f uture harm re qui re d . Ins te ad , the
movi ng p arty ne e d onl y s how a " l i ke l i hood " or " s i gni f i c ant thre at" of
i rre p arab l e i nj ury. ER 304 ( O rd e r at 7 ( quoti ng O akl and Tri b une , Inc . v.
Chroni c l e Pub . Co. , 762 F. 2d 1374, 1376 ( 9 th Ci r. 19 8 5 ) ) .
None the l e s s , the d i s tri c t c ourt ap p l i e d the wrong l e gal s tand ard . It
re j e c te d te s ti mony of Fox 's knowl e d ge ab l e and e x p e ri e nc e d e x e c uti ve s on the
ground that i t f ai l e d to s how that Di s h's ne w s e rvi c e s have " al re ad y harme d "
Fox and that Fox 's te s ti mony ab out l i ke l y f uture harms was i nhe re ntl y
" s p e c ul ati ve . " ER 311 ( O rd e r at 14) . The c ourt f und ame ntal l y mi s c ons true d
what i t me ans f or e vi d e nc e to b e und ul y s p e c ul ati ve i n the c onte x t of a
37
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g . A p r e d i c t i o n o f fu t u r e ha r m ba se d o n
fi r st ha n d e x p e r i e n c e a n d c o m m o n se n se i n fe r e n c e s fr o m u n d i sp u t e d fa c t s i s
n o t sp e c u l a t i v e . To t he c o n t r a r y , i t i s w e l l e st a bl i she d t ha t t he m o v i n g p a r t y
n e e d o n l y sho w a " si g n i fi c a n t r i sk " t ha t i t w i l l e x p e r i e n c e " ha r m t ha t c a n n o t
be c o m p e n sa t e d a ft e r t he fa c t by m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s. " Cr o w e & Du n l e a v y ,
P. C. v . St i d ha m , 640 F. 3 d 1140, 1157 (10t h Ci r . 2011); Ad a m s v . Fr e e d o m
Fo r g e Co r p . , 204 F. 3d 475, 484-85 (3d Ci r . 2000) (sa m e ); Asso c i a t e d Ge n .
Co n t r a c t o r s o f Ca l . , I n c . v . Co a l i t i o n fo r Ec o n . Equ i t y , 950 F. 2d 1401, 1410
(9t h Ci r . 1991) (sa m e ).
I r r e p a r a bl e ha r m i s fr e qu e n t l y d e fi n e d a s a n i n j u r y t ha t c a n n o t be
" r e m e d i e d by a d a m a g e a w a r d " a l o n e . Re n t-A-Ce n t e r , I n c . v . Ca n y o n Te l . &
Ap p l i a n c e Re n t a l , I n c . , 944 F. 2d 597, 603 (9t h Ci r . 1991). Thi s i n c l u d e s
" d a m a g e s (t ha t ) w o u l d be d i ffi c u l t t o v a l u a t e . " I d . As t hi s Co u r t ha s l o n g
r e c o g n i ze d , " i n j u r y so m e t i m e s o c c u r s w ho se m e a su r e i s u n c e r t a i n , a n d a
t hr e a t o f i n j u r y m a y be qu i t e r e a l e v e n t ho u g h t he m e a su r e o f t he t hr e a t e n e d
i n j u r y d e fi e s c a l c u l a t i o n . " Tr e a su r e V a l l e y Po t a t o Ba r g a i n i n g Assn v . Or e-
I d a Fo o d s, I n c . , 497 F. 2d 203, 218 (9t h Ci r . 1974) (e m p ha si s a d d e d ).
Ac c o r d i n g l y , i n t a n g i bl e i n j u r i e s, su c h a s " l o st c o n t r a c t s a n d c u st o m e r s, a n d
ha r m t o [a c o m p a n y 's] bu si n e ss r e p u t a t i o n a n d g o o d w i l l " qu a l i fy a s
i r r e p a r a bl e ha r m . St u hl ba ~g I n t l Sa l e s Co . v . Jo hn D. Bu sh & Co . , 240 F. 3d
38
832, 838 ( 9 t h C i r . 2001); Rent-A-C ent er , 9 44 F. 2d a t 603.5 I n sum, t h e f a c t
t h a t da ma ges a r e di f f i c ul t t o q ua nt i f y ma kes t h em i r r ep a r a b l e, no t undul y
sp ec ul a t i v e. G i l der v . PG A T o ur , I nc . , 9 36 F. 2d 417, 423 ( 9 t h C i r . 19 9 1).
T h i s r ul e c o mp o r t s w i t h t h e p ur p o se o f a p r el i mi na r y i nj unc t i o n, w h i c h
i s t o p r o v i de sp eedy , ef f ec t i v e r el i ef i n a dv a nc e o f t r i a l a nd t o ni p unl a w f ul
c o nduc t i n t h e b ud b ef o r e i t c a n c a use si gni f i c a nt i nj ur y . T o r eq ui r e p r o o f t h a t
t h e p l a i nt i f f a l r ea dy h a s suf f er ed a c t ua l h a r m o r t h a t f ut ur e h a r m i s c er t a i n
a s t h e di st r i c t c o ur t ef f ec t i v el y di d i n i t s Or der b el o w "w o ul d def ea t t h e
p ur p o se o f t h e p r el i mi na r y i nj unc t i o n, w h i c h i s t o p r ev ent a n i nj ur y f r o m
o c c ur r i ng. " Di a mo nt i ney v . Bo r g, 9 18 F. 2d 79 3, 79 5 ( 9 t h C i r . 19 9 0); a c c o r d
11A C . Wr i gh t , A. M i l l er , et a l . , FEDERAL PRAC T I C E AND PROC EDURE
29 48. 1 ( 2013) ( "t h e i nj ur y need no t h a v e b een i nf l i c t ed w h en a p p l i c a t i o n i s
ma de o r b e c er t a i n t o o c c ur ; a st r o ng t h r ea t o f i r r ep a r a b l e i nj ur y b ef o r e t r i a l i s
a n a deq ua t e b a si s").
T h e di st r i c t c o ur t ' s st a nda r d t h us p ut s c o p y r i gh t p l a i nt i f f s i n a n
a w kw a r d "C a t c h-22" si t ua t i o n: i f t h ey mo v e q ui c kl y , w i t h o ut w a i t i ng f o r t h e
f ul l h a r m t h r ea t ened b y t h e def enda nt ' s c o nduc t t o b ec o me ma ni f est , t h ey w i l l
5 I ndeed, i n o ne c a se r el i ed o n b y t h e di st r i c t c o ur t , Py r o S p ec t a c ul a r s No r t h ,
I nc . v . S o uza , 861 F. S up p . 2d 1079 ( E. D. C a l . 2012), t h e c o ur t i n f a c t gr a nt ed
a p r el i mi na r y i nj unc t i o n b a sed o n ev i denc e t h a t t h e def enda nt ' s c o nduc t
t h r ea t ened t o di sr up t t h e p l a i nt i f f ' s r el a t i o nsh i p w i t h i t s c ust o mer s. I d. a t
109 2.
39
be d en i ed i n j u n c t i v e r el i ef bec au se t h e h ar m i s d eemed " sp ec u l at i v e. " Bu t i f
t h ey w ai t f o r t h e h ar m t o bec o me p r esen t an d p al p abl y p ai n f u l , t h ey w i l l be
su bj ec t t o ar gu men t s t h at i n j u n c t i v e r el i ef sh o u l d be d en i ed bec au se t h ey
w ai t ed t o o l o n g t o t ak e ac t i o n .
I I I . Th e D i st r i c t Co u r t 's Fac t u al Fi n d i n gs Wer e Cl ear l y Er r o n eo u s.
" A d i st r i c t c o u r t abu ses i t s d i sc r et i o n i f i t bases i t s d ec i si o n o n . . .
c l ear l y er r o n eo u s f i n d i n gs o f f ac t . " M. R. v . D r ey f u s, 697 F. 3d 706, 725 ( 9t h
Ci r . 2012) ( i n t er n al q u o t at i o n s an d c i t at i o n s o mi t t ed ). I n d et er mi n i n g w h et h er
t h er e w as c l ear er r o r , t h e Co u r t o f Ap p eal s l o o k s at w h et h er t h e t r i al c o u r t 's
r u l i n g " r esu l t ed f r o m a f ac t u al f i n d i n g t h at w as i l l o gi c al , i mp l au si bl e, o r
w i t h o u t su p p o r t i n i n f er en c es t h at may be d r aw n f r o m t h e f ac t s i n t h e r ec o r d . "
I d . ( i n t er n al q u o t es an d c i t es o mi t t ed ).
A. Th e D i st r i c t Co u r t Er r ed I n Fi n d i n g No Th r eat Of
I r r ep ar abl e Har m To Fo x's D i st r i bu t o r Rel at i o n sh i p s.
( 1) Fo x's I r r ep ar abl e Har m Ev i d en c e Exc eed s Th at Wh i c h
Ot h er Co u r t s Hav e Rel i ed On I n S i r n i l aY Ci r c u mst an c es.
I n su p p o r t o f i t s p r el i mi n ar y i n j u n c t i o n mo t i o n , Fo x su bmi t t ed t h e
d ec l ar at i o n o f Mi c h ael Bi ar d , Fo x's Exec u t i v e Vi c e P r esi d en t , D i st r i bu t i o n .6
ER 1795-1863. Mr . Bi ar d i s p er so n al l y i n v o l v ed i n Fo x's c o n t r ac t
n ego t i at i o n s w i t h MVP D s, i n c l u d i n g c abl e an d sat el l i t e t el ev i si o n p r o v i d er s
6 Mr . Bi ar d w as r ec en t l y p r o mo t ed t o P r esi d en t , D i st r i bu t i o n .
40
l i k e Di sh, a s w e l l a s t hi r d - p a r t y d i st r i b u t o r s su ch a s Hu l u , Ap p l e , a nd
Ama zo n. ER 1796- 1797 ( B i a r d De cl . 2 - 3 ) . He ha s b e e n ne g o t i a t i ng su ch
d e a l s f o r mo r e t ha n 10 y e a r s, t y p i ca l l y a s t he " l e a d ne g o t i a t o r ," a nd k no w s t he
b u si ne ss mo d e l s o f Fo x a nd i t s d i st r i b u t o r s. I d .
Mr . B i a r d e xp l a i ne d t ha t
ER
1803 . B a se d o n hi s 10- p l u s y e a r s o f e xp e r i e nce a nd d e a l i ng s w i t h t he se
p r o g r a mmi ng d i st r i b u t o r s, Mr . B i a r d t e st i f i e d t ha t
. He e xp l a i ne d t ha t Di sh' s co mp e t i t o r s
" b e ca u se
. I d . Acco r d i ng
t o Mr . B i a r d ,
ER 1803 - 1804.
Fo x a l so su b mi t t e d t he d e cl a r a t i o n o f S he r r y B r e nna n, Fo x' s S e ni o r
Vi ce P r e si d e nt , Di st r i b u t i o n S t r a t e g y a nd De ve l o p me nt . ER 2 2 5- 2 65. Ms.
B r e nna n i s a n i nd u st r y ve t e r a n w i t h d e ca d e s o f e xp e r i e nce , e xt e nsi ve
k no w l e d g e o f Fo x' s d i st r i b u t i o n st r a t e g y , a nd p e r so na l k no w l e d g e o f Fo x' s
ne g o t i a t i o ns w i t h i t s p r o g r a mmi ng d i st r i b u t o r s. ER 2 2 6, 2 2 8- 2 3 1, 2 3 5.
41
Ms. Brennan ex p l ai ned how D i sh' s u nau t hori z ed cond u ct t hreat ens
au t hori z ed d i st ri b u t ors and t hei r rel at i onshi p s wi t h Fox : " I f D i sh i s st ream i ng
l i v e Fox p rog ram m i ng ov er t he I nt ernet t o i t s su b scri b ers, ot her MVPD s wi l l
d em and t he sam e ri g ht s or ot her concessi ons t o hel p m i t i g at e t he ri sk of
l osi ng su b scri b ers t o D i sh." ER 235. Based on her 24 y ears of com b i ned
ex p eri ence work i ng f or Fox (as wel l as MVPD s), Ms. Brennan i s " cert ai n t hat
D i sh' s cont i nu i ng ab i l i t y t o st ream Fox ' s l i v e p rog ram m i ng ov er t he I nt ernet
wi t hou t au t hori z at i on wi l l b e a f act or i n [Fox ' s u p com i ng ] neg ot i at i ons." I d .
I n t he p ast 12 m ont hs, Ms. Brennan su b m i t t ed v i rt u al l y i d ent i cal
t est i m ony i n su p p ort of Fox ' s ef f ort s t o st op u nau t hori z ed I nt ernet st ream i ng
of Fox ' s p rog ram m i ng i n Los Ang el es and Washi ng t on, D .C. I n Barry D ri l l er
(C.D . Cal .), Ju d g e Wu read i l y accep t ed Ms. Brennan' s t est i m ony as su f f i ci ent
p roof of i rrep arab l e harm . See 915 F. Su p p . 2d at 1147. Rel y i ng sol el y on
Ms. Brennan' s d ecl arat i on, Ju d g e Wu concl u d ed t hat an u nau t hori z ed
ret ransm i ssi on serv i ce " d am ag es Pl ai nt i f f s' g ood wi l l " wi t h i t s MVPD
d i st ri b u t ors and " p u t s t he sam e k i nd of p ressu re" on Fox ' s rel at i onshi p s wi t h
I nt ernet and d i g i t al d i st ri b u t ors su ch as Hu l u and Ap p l e. I d . (recog ni z i ng t hat
u nau t hori z ed I nt ernet st ream i ng t hreat ens t hese rel at i onshi p s " t o a g reat er
d eg ree, b ecau se t he serv i ces are m ore d i rect l y su b st i t u t ab l e" )
42
I n Fox T e l e v i s i on S t a t i on s , I n c . v . Fi l mOn X LLC (D. D. C. ), Judge
Col l y e r a l s o r e l i e d on Ms . Br e n n a n 's de c l a r a t i on t e s t i mon y a n d foun d t h a t
un a ut h or i z e d I n t e r n e t s t r e a mi n g i r r e p a r a b l y h a r ms Fox b e c a us e i t t h r e a t e n s t o
n e ga t i v e l y i mp a c t Fox's up c omi n g n e got i a t i on s w i t h l i c e n s e d MVPDs a n d
ot h e r di s t r i b ut or s . 2013 WL 4763414 a t * 15 - 16. T h e c our t e xp r e s s l y r e j e c t e d
t h e de fe n da n t 's c l a i ms t h a t Ms . Br e n n a n 's s t a t e me n t s a b out n e ga t i v e i mp a c t s
on Fox's b us i n e s s r e l a t i on s h i p s w e r e s p e c ul a t i v e a n d h e l d t h a t Ms . Br e n n a n 's
t e s t i mon y s h ow e d t h a t " i r r e p a r a b l e i n j ur y i s l i k e l y i n t h e a b s e n c e of a n
i n j un c t i on . " I d. a t * 16 (i t a l i c s i n or i gi n a l ). Judge Col l y e r a l s o h e l d t h a t h a r m
t o c on t r a c t ua l r e l a t i on s h i p s a n d n e got i a t i on s w a s n ot q ua n t i fi a b l e a n d, t h us ,
w a r r a n t e d i n j un c t i v e r e l i e f. I d.
Ot h e r c our t s i n t h i s Ci r c ui t a n d e l s e w h e r e s i mi l a r l y h a v e h e l d t h a t a
c op y r i gh t ow n e r i s i r r e p a r a b l y h a r me d w h e n a s e r v i c e p r ov i de r s t r e a ms i t s
v i de o c on t e n t ov e r t h e I n t e r n e t w i t h out a ut h or i z a t i on b e c a us e t h e c op y r i gh t
ow n e r 's r e l a t i on s h i p s a n d n e got i a t i on s w i t h a ut h or i z e d l i c e n s e e s a r e
n e ga t i v e l y a ffe c t e d. WT V S y s . , 824 F. S up p . 2d a t 1012 (fi n di n g t h a t un l a w ful
s t r e a mi n g s e r v i c e w oul d h a r m " Pl a i n t i ffs ' r e l a t i on s h i p s , i n c l udi n g t h e
goodw i l l de v e l op e d w i t h t h e i r l i c e n s e e s " ); i v i , 691 F. 3d a t 285 (un a ut h or i z e d
s t r e a mi n g s e r v i c e w oul d i r r e p a r a b l y h a r m b r oa dc a s t e r s b y de v a l ui n g t h e l i v e
43
programming and thereby "undermining ex is ting and pros pec tiv e
retrans mis s ion f ees , negotiations , and agreements ") .
Here, Fox prof f ered more ev idenc e of threatened harm than it did in
FilmOn and B a~ ~ yD ~ iller bec aus e it als o s ubmitted the dec laration of
Mr. B iard, Fox 's lead c ontrac t negotiator, to c orroborate and bols ter
Ms . B rennan's tes timony. On this rec ord, it was c lear error and an abus e of
dis c retion f or the dis tric t c ourt to inex plic ably reac h the oppos ite res ult of its
s is ter c ourts . ER 306-307 (Order at 9 -1 0) .
(2) The Court's Finding Of No Harm To Fox 's D is tributor
Relations hips Is Illogic al And Implaus ible.
The dis tric t c ourt's f ac tual f indings are c learly erroneous bec aus e they
are "illogic al [and] implaus ible. " D reyf us , 69 7 F. 3d at 725. The c ourt agreed
with D is h that bec aus e s ome programming dis tributors are authoriz ed to
s tream Fox Programs ov er the Internet or dis tribute downloadable v ers ions to
c ons umers , "any pos s ible los s in bargaining power is either unlik ely or c an
The dis tric t c ourt s ought to dis tinguis h this c as e f rom thos e inv olv ing
unauthoriz ed Internet s treaming s erv ic es that hav e no preex is ting bus ines s
relations hip with Fox . ER 307 (Order at 1 0) . In thos e c as es , there was an
added threat that paying s ubs c ribers of an MVPD would c anc el their
s ubs c riptions , whic h in turn would reduc e Fox 's rev enues f rom s ubs c riber
f ees . B y c omparis on, s ubs c ribers that us e D is h Anywhere and Hopper
Trans f ers are already paying c us tomers that s ubs c ribe to D is h (whic h benef its
Fox ) . This may be true, but it is irrelev ant. J us t bec aus e Fox s uf f ers
additional harms when a c omplete s tranger s teals its c opyrighted
programming, it does not mean that Fox is not s uf f ering dif f erent, but eq ually
harmf ul, inj uries where, as here, its own dis tributor hij ac k s its programming.
e a s i l y be me a s ure d." ER 306 (Orde r a t 9 ) . Thi s mi s s e s t he p o i n t . The f a c t
t ha t Fo x ma y ha ve l i c e n s e d t he s e ri g ht s t o Di s h's c o mp e t i t o rs i s p re c i s e l y
why Di s h's un a ut ho ri ze d e xp l o i t a t i o n o f t he s a me ri g ht s wi l l n e g a t i ve l y
i mp a c t Fo x's up c o mi n g n e g o t i a t i o n s wi t h l e g i t i ma t e di s t ri but o rs . In o t he r
wo rds , why wo ul d a di s t ri but o r p a y f o r a l i c e n s e , o r a g re e t o n ume ro us
c o n t ra c t t e rms a n d burde n s o me c o n di t i o n s , i f i t s di re c t c o mp e t i t o r i s f re e l y
e xp l o i t i n g t he e xa c t s a me ri g ht s wi t h n o s t ri n g s a t t a c he d? The f a c t t ha t o t he r
di s t ri but o rs f o l l o w t he rul e s a n d re s p e c t Fo x's c o p y ri g ht s ma ke s i t mo re l i ke l y
n o t l e s s l i ke l y t ha t t he i r re l a t i o n s hi p s wi t h Fo x wi l l be n e g a t i ve l y
i mp a c t e d by Di s h's ro g ue c o n duc t . Se e B a r~ y Dri l l e r, 9 15 F. Sup p . 2d 1138,
1147 (re c o g n i zi n g t ha t i f de f e n da n t e xp l o i t s p l a i n t i f f s ' wo rks wi t ho ut p a y i n g ,
"P l a i n t i f f s ' e xi s t i n g a n d p ro s p e c t i ve l i c e n s e e s wi l l de ma n d c o n c e s s i o n s t o
ma ke up t he l o s s o f vi e we rs hi p t o n o n -p a y i n g a l t e rn a t i ve s ") ; i vi , 69 1 F.3d a t
286 (f i n di n g t ha t un a ut ho ri ze d e xp l o i t a t i o n o f c o p y ri g ht e d p ro g ra ms t hre a t e n s
t o i rre p a ra bl y ha rm Fo x's re l a t i o n s hi p wi t h c urre n t l i c e n s e e s a n d, t he re f o re ,
t he "s t re n g t h o f p l a i n t i f f s ' n e g o t i a t i n g p l a t f o rm a n d bus i n e s s mo de l wo ul d
de c l i n e ") .
Furt he rmo re , e ve n i f t he va l ue o f t he s e rvi c e s un l a wf ul l y e xp l o i t e d by
Di s h c o ul d be me a s ure d, a s t he di s t ri c t c o urt a s s ume d (ER 307 (Orde r a t 10) ) ,
t hi s wo ul d n o t a c c o un t f o r t he n e g a t i ve i mp a c t o n Fo x's n e g o t i a t i o n s a n d
45
r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h o t h e r d i s t r i b u t o r s t h a t w i l l o c c u r b e t w e e n n o w a n d t h e t i m e
o f t r i a l . Th e s e u n i q u e h a r m s w h i c h Ms . Br e n n a n e x p l a i n s c a n n o t b e
q u a n t i fi e d i n d o l l a r s a n d c e n t s a r e s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t fr o m t h e h a r m o f
Di s h n o t p a yi n g Fo x fo r c e r t a i n r i gh t s t h a t i t i s e x p l o i t i n g. ER 235.
(3) Th e Co u r t 's Fi n d i n g Of No Ha r m To Fo x 's Di s t r i b u t o r
Re l a t i o n s h i p s Is No t Su p p o r t e d By Evi d e n c e .
Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t 's fi n d i n gs r e ga r d i n g h a r m t o Fo x 's d i s t r i b u t o r
r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e t h e y a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d b y
e vi d e n c e . Th e c o u r t r e l i e d e x c l u s i ve l y o n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f Ri c h a r d Ra p p , a n
e c o n o m i s t h i r e d b y Di s h fo r t h i s l i t i ga t i o n . ER 306 (Or d e r a t 9 ). Ra p p w h o
h a s n e ve r w o r ke d a d a y i n t h e t e l e vi s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n b u s i n e s s a n d h a s n o
e x p e r i e n c e n e go t i a t i n g t e l e vi s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n d e a l s s u b m i t t e d a n 81-
p a r a gr a p h d e c l a r a t i o n t o r e b u t Fo x 's e vi d e n c e o f i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m . On l y t w o
s h o r t p a r a gr a p h s o f Mr . Ra p p 's d e c l a r a t i o n a d d r e s s t h e t h r e a t o f h a r m t o
Fo x 's n e go t i a t i o n s w i t h d i s t r i b u t o r s b e t w e e n n o w a n d t r i a l , a n d n e i t h e r o n e
s u p p o r t s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t 's fi n d i n gs . ER 874- 875.
In P a r a gr a p h 58, Mr . Ra p p c l a i m s t h a t a n y h a r m t o Fo x 's go o d w i l l
c a u s e d b y d i s r u p t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l s u p p o s e d l y b e r e m e d i e d b e c a u s e , i f Fo x
p r e va i l s a t t r i a l , i t " w i l l r e s u l t i n p a ym e n t t o Fo x w h i c h w o u l d a p p r o x i m a t e l y
c o m p e n s a t e i m b a l a n c e s b e t w e e n DISH a n d o t h e r MVP Ds . " ER 874. Th i s i s
m e a n i n gl e s s . Mr . Ra p p n e ve r r e fu t e s t h a t Fo x 's go o d w i l l i s b e i n g d a m a ge d ,
nor does he ex p l a i n how t ha t i nj u ry c ou l d p ossi b l y b e mea su red i n t he form of
a "p a y ment ." I d. I nst ea d, Mr. Ra p p i roni c a l l y sp ec u l a t es t ha t t he ha rm t o
Fox 's di st ri b u t or rel a t i onshi p s i s q u a nt i fi a b l e merel y b ec a u se i t mi ght
someda y resu l t i n a monet a ry a wa rd. Thi s sort of c i rc u l a r, c onc l u sory
rea soni ng c a nnot ou t wei gh t he c orrob ora t ed, fi rst - ha nd t est i mony of
ex p eri enc ed i ndu st ry p a rt i c i p a nt s, Mr. B i a rd a nd Ms. B renna n. See St i nnet t v .
Da mson O i l C op p ., 648 F.2d 576, 581 ( 9 t h C i r. 19 81) ( fi ndi ngs were c l ea rl y
erroneou s b ec a u se t hey were "whol l y u nsu p p ort ed b y ev i denc e"); Hel a sh v .
B a l l a rd, 638 F.2d 74, 75 ( 9 t h C i r. 19 80) ( fa c t u a l fi ndi ngs were c l ea rl y
erroneou s b ec a u se t hey were "t ot a l l y u nsu p p ort ed b y rec ord ev i denc e");
Sec u ri t y- Fi st Na t i ona l B a nk of Los Angel es v . Lu t z , 322 F.2d 348, 356 n.1
( 9 t h C i r. 19 63) ( fa c t u a l fi ndi ng i s c l ea rl y erroneou s i f i t c ont ra di c t s t he onl y
ev i denc e i n t he rec ord on p oi nt ); Gl ens Fa l i s I ndemni t y C o. v . Ameri c a n
Sea t i ng C o., 248 F.2d 846, 849 ( 9 t h C i r. 19 57) ( fa c t u a l fi ndi ng t ha t i s
u nsu p p ort ed b y ev i denc e i s c l ea rl y erroneou s).
I n Pa ra gra p h 59 , Mr. Ra p p p osi t s t ha t a ny a greement s b et ween Fox a nd
i t s MVPD di st ri b u t ors "t ha t c ome u p for renewa l p ri or t o t he t i me of t ri a l wi l l
resu l t i n negot i a t i ons t ha t a c c ou nt for p rev a i l i ng ma rket c ondi t i ons." ER 874-
47
875.8 But th i s i s p r e c i s e l y wh at Fox i s wor r i e d ab out: th e p r e v ai l i n g mar ke t
i n c l ud e s D i s h ' s s tr e ami n g an d c op y i n g of Fox' s p r og r ams wi th out a l i c e n s e ,
p ay me n t of c on s i d e r ati on , or ad h e r e n c e to Fox' s te r ms an d c on d i ti on s . I f Fox
p r e v ai l s at tr i al , i t wi l l b e s tuc k wi th n e w ag r e e me n ts th at we r e ad v e r s e l y
i mp ac te d b y th e s e " p r e v ai l i n g " ad v e r s e mar ke t c on d i ti on s . I f an y th i n g ,
Par ag r ap h 59 of Mr . Rap p ' s d e c l ar ati on s up p or ts Fox' s c l ai m of i r r e p ar ab l e
h ar m b e c aus e h e c on c e d e s th e e ffe c ts of D i s h ' s un l awful c on d uc t wi l l b e
b ake d i n to Fox' s d i s tr i b uti on ag r e e me n ts e n te r e d i n to b e twe e n n ow an d th e
ti me of tr i al .
I n e xp l i c ab l y , th e d i s tr i c t c our t' s or d e r al s o s tate s th at " Fox c on te n d s
th at D i s h ' s c omp e ti tor MVPD s wi l l on l y `d e man d th e s ame r i g h ts or oth e r
c on c e s s i on s ' i f [ D i s h ' s ] 2013 S e r v i c e s ar e foun d to b e un l awful , " an d th at Fox
p r e s e n te d n o e v i d e n c e th at MVPD s wi l l make th e s e d e man d s b e twe e n n ow
an d th e ti me of tr i al . ER 307 (Or d e r at 10) (c i ti n g Br e n n an D e c l . 22, ER
235) (e mp h as i s ad d e d ). Fox n e v e r s ai d th at. I n s te ad , Fox' s wi tn e s s e s c l e ar l y
e xp l ai n e d th at d ur i n g th e c omi n g y e ar i .e ., b e for e tr i al
ER 1802-1803, 233, 235-236. Be c aus e th e d i s tr i c t c our t' s fi n d i n g s
g Mr . Rap p i g n or e s Fox' s r e l ate d c l ai m th at
misconstrue Fox's evidence and are unsupported by Dish's evidence, they are
cl earl y erroneous.
(4) The Court Ignored Key Evidence.
The district court al so abused its discretion by compl etel y ignoring
Mr. B iard's decl aration without expl anation. ER 305 (Order at 8 ). See Myers
v. United States, 652 F. 3d 1021, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (f actual f indings were
cl earl y erroneous because they ignored key evidence). Unl ike Mr. Rapp,
Mr. B iard is Fox's l ead negotiator f or distribution agreements with personal
knowl edge of Fox's distributor rel ationships and, theref ore, has a f actual basis
f or his testimony and opinions. ER 1796-1797, 18 03-18 04. Mr. B iard stated
that Dish's new unauthorized services wil l negativel y impact his upcoming
negotiations with MVPDs and other distributors and coul d f orce Fox to make
concessions that it woul d not otherwise have made. ER 18 03-18 04. These
consequences are irreparabl e because they are dif f icul t, if not impossibl e, to
quantif y. Rent-A-Center, 944 F. 2d at 603 (irreparabl e harm incl udes
"damages [ that] woul d be dif f icul t to val uate"). Mr. B iard's testimony
corroborates and bol sters Ms. B rennan's testimony, which, standing al one,
was suf f icient to prove irreparabl e harm in Fil mOn and B a~ ryDril l er. It was
cl ear error f or the district court to ignore it f or no articul ated reason.
. .
B. The D i s t r i c t Cour t Er r ed In Fi ndi ng No Thr eat Of
Ir r epar able Har m To Fox's Commer c i al Adver t i s i ng
Bus i nes s .
Adver t i s er s pay mor e t o have t hei r ads di s played dur i ng Fox Pr ogr ams
wi t h hi gher vi ewer s hi p and an appeali ng demogr aphi c pr ofi le ( e.g., vi ewer s
aged 18-49 year s ) . ER 227-228, 233-234. It i s undi s put ed t hat Ni els en's C3
met r i c i s "t he mos t i nfluent i al" c ommer c i al vi ewer s hi p r at i ng and t he one
"pr i mar i ly r eli ed upon by adver t i s er s i n dec i di ng what r at es t o pay" for TV
ads . ER 233 ( emphas i s added) .
Ni els en's C3 r at i ng c ur r ent ly meas ur es s t andar d t elevi s i on and D VR
vi ewi ng i n t he home only and does not i nc lude out-of-home vi ewi ng s uc h as
Int er net s t r eami ng. ER 233. Ther efor e, i t i s als o undi s put ed t hat D i s h's
unaut hor i zed Int er net s t r eami ng of Fox Pr ogr ams and di s t r i but i on t o mobi le
devi c es i s not c apt ur ed by C3 and nec es s ar i ly r es ult s i n an under c ount of
vi ewer s wat c hi ng TV ads on t he Fox Net wor k ( and t hei r demogr aphi c
pr ofi les ) . ER 233. Cour t s c ons i s t ent ly have r ec ogni zed t hat a los s of
meas ur ed vi ewer s i mpac t s t he value of TV ads and t he wi lli ngnes s of
adver t i s er s t o buy t hem, all of whi c h ar e di ffi c ult t o q uant i fy and c ons t i t ut e
i r r epar able har m. See Bar r yD ~i ller , 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1147 ( r elyi ng on
Sher r y Br ennan's dec lar at i on, fi ndi ng i r r epar able har m, and holdi ng t hat
"[b]ec aus e D efendant s di ver t us er s who would ot her wi s e ac c es s Plai nt i ffs '
50
c o n t e n t i n a way t h at i n c l u d e s t h e u s e r s i n t h e me as u r e me n t o f t h e au d i e n c e
fo r p u r p o s e s o f ad v e r t i s i n g r e v e n u e c al c u l at i o n , D e fe n d an t s ' s e r v i c e al s o
h ar ms P l ai n t i ffs ' p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r n e g o t i at i o n s wi t h ad v e r t i s e r s " ) ; Fi l mOn ,
2013 WL 4763414 at * 15 ( r e l yi n g o n Ms . Br e n n an ' s d e c l ar at i o n an d h o l d i n g
t h at u n au t h o r i z e d I n t e r n e t s t r e ami n g s e r v i c e i r r e p ar ab l y h ar me d Fo x b e c au s e
i t d i v e r t s v i e we r s fr o m d i s t r i b u t i o n c h an n e l s me as u r e d b y N i e l s e n r at i n g s ,
wh i c h ar e b y far t h e mo s t s i g n i fi c an t v i e we r s h i p me as u r e me n t s r e l i e d u p o n b y
ad v e r t i s e r s i n d e t e r mi n i n g wh at t o p ay) ; see al s o i v i , 691 F.3d 275, 285-86
( h o l d i n g t h at u n au t h o r i z e d r e t r an s mi s s i o n o f Fo x' s p r o g r ammi n g o v e r t h e
I n t e r n e t wo u l d " we ake n p l ai n t i ffs ' n e g o t i at i n g p o s i t i o n wi t h ad v e r t i s e r s an d
r e d u c e t h e v al u e o f [ t h e i r ] l o c al ad v e r t i s e me n t s " )
D e s p i t e Fo x' s u n r e b u t t e d e v i d e n c e an d c as e l aw d i r e c t l y o n p o i n t , t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e r e e r r o n e o u s l y r e ac h e d t h e o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n . Th e c o u r t
r e l i e d o n t wo fi n d i n g s t h at ar e u n s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e , s p e c u l at i v e , an d
i l l o g i c al .
Fi r s t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , r e l yi n g e xc l u s i v e l y o n t h e d e c l ar at i o n o f
Mr . Rap p , D i s h ' s r e t ai n e d e c o n o mi s t , fo u n d t h at " al t h o u g h N i e l s e n d o e s n o t
c u r r e n t l y c ap t u r e al l d at a r e l e v an t t o v al u i n g ad v e r t i s i n g t i me , o t h e r e n t i t i e s
c o mp e n s at e fo r t h at g ap an d ad e q u at e l y c ap t u r e t r e n d s i n t e l e v i s i o n v i e wi n g
an d , b y e xt e n s i o n , ad v e r t i s i n g v al u e ." ER 310 ( Or d e r at 13) ; ER 865-867.
51
But Mr. Rapp pro v i d e s n o th i n g mo re th an g e n e ral i z e d s tate me n ts th at
v i e w e rs h i p o f d i g i tal d o w n l o ad an d o n l i n e VOD s e rv i c e s c an be me as ure d ; h e
n e v e r s tate s th at v i e w e rs h i p o f Di s h 's un auth o ri z e d , l i v e I n te rn e t s tre ami n g
s e rv i c e o r Ho ppe r T ran s fe r c o pi e s c an be me as ure d . ER 865-867.9 I f Fo x
pre v ai l s at tri al , Mr. Rapp n e v e r e xpl ai n s h o w Fo x c o ul d g o bac k i n ti me an d
c al c ul ate th e n umbe r o f Di s h An yw h e re an d Ho ppe r T ran s fe rs v i e w e rs w h o
w atc h e d Fo x Pro g rams , l e t al o n e th e ad s d uri n g th o s e pro g rams , d uri n g th e
pe ri o d be tw e e n n o w an d th e ti me o f tri al .
Mr. Rapp's te s ti mo n y (an d , by e xte n s i o n , th e d i s tri c t c o urt's an al ys i s )
al s o s ki rts th e mo s t i mpo rtan t po i n t: th e i s s ue i s n o t w h e th e r s o me o n e ,
s o me w h e re i s c apabl e o f me as uri n g l i v e I n te rn e t s tre ami n g o r mo bi l e d e v i c e
v i e w i n g o f Fo x Pro g rams ; th e i s s ue i s w h e th e r th e l i v e I n te rn e t s tre ami n g o f
Fo x Pro g rams an d th e v i e w i n g o f th o s e pro g rams o n mo bi l e d e v i c e s are
c o un te d by N i e l s e n 's C3 rati n g , th e me tri c pri mari l y re l i e d o n by ad v e rti s e rs
w h e n d e c i d i n g h o w muc h to pay Fo x an d o th e r bro ad c as te rs fo r T V ad s . ER
233-234. T h e re fo re , Mr. Rapp's i rre l e v an t s tate me n ts abo ut o th e r me as uri n g
s e rv i c e s d o n o t, as a matte r o f l o g i c o r fac t, re but Fo x's e v i d e n c e o f
i rre parabl e h arm.
Mr. Rapp al s o i g n o re s th e fac t th at N i e l s e n 's C3 rati n g i n c l ud e s
d e mo g raph i c i n fo rmati o n th at i s v al uabl e to Fo x's ad v e rti s e rs . He d o e s n o t
i d e n ti fy an y c o mpe ti n g rati n g s s e rv i c e s th at me as ure th e d e mo g raph i c s o f l i v e
te l e v i s i o n pro g rammi n g th at i s s tre ame d o v e r th e I n te rn e t.
52
Second, t h e di s t r i ct cou r t bas ed i t s f i ndi ng of no i r r ep ar abl e h ar m t o
Fox's adv er t i s i ng bu s i nes s on t h e bel i ef t h at "Ni el s en ...wi l l meas u r e
v i ewer s h i p del i v er ed t h r ou g h onl i ne connect i ons beg i nni ng i n f al l 2013." ER
310 (Or der at 13) . Th e cou r t al s o f ou nd t h at Ni el s en's s u p p os ed "p l edg e at
l eas t demons t r at es t h at t h e t r end i n v i ewi ng p r act i ces i s not g oi ng u nnot i ced,
and i t s t r ong l y s u g g es t s t h at t h e ent i t i es t h at g at h er adv er t i s i ng dat a ar ea r eady
and wi l l i ng t o adap t t o t h e new l ands cap e." ER 310 (Or der at 13) . Th es e
f i ndi ng s wh i ch r es t ent i r el y on Par ag r ap h 42 of Mr . Rap p 's decl ar at i on ar e
wh ol l y u ns u p p or t ed. Par ag r ap h 42 i s not Mr . Rap p 's exp er t op i ni on; i t i s an
i naccu r at e, p ar t i al r eci t at i on of a New Yor k Ti mes ar t i cl e r ep or t i ng t h at
Ni el s en h as beg u n meas u r i ng v i ewer s h i p on I nt er net-connect ed t el ev i s i on
s et s . ER 867. ~ ~
Pu t t i ng as i de t h e i mp r op r i et y of u s i ng an exp er t as a mer e condu i t f or
t r i p l e h ear s ay , t h e ar t i cl e di d not s ay t h at Ni el s en i s meas u r i ng v i ewer s h i p on
s er v i ces s u ch as Di s h Any wh er e or Hop p er Tr ans f er s t h at s t r eam Fox's
p r og r ammi ng ov er t h e I nt er net t o v i ewer s and ot h er wi s e make t h em av ai l abl e
f or v i ewi ng ou t s i de t h e h ome. Rat h er , t h e ar t i cl e r ep or t s Ni el s en's p l edg e t o
t o
Th e docu ment s ci t ed i n Mr . Rap p 's decl ar at i on wer e not at t ach ed t o h i s
decl ar at i on. Howev er , a cop y of t h e New Yor k Ti mes ar t i cl e r el i ed on by
Mr . Rap p (and t h e di s t r i ct cou r t ) can be f ou nd at
h t t p : / / medi adecoder .bl og s .ny t i mes .com/ 2013/ 02/ 21/ t v s -connect ed-t o-t h e-
i nt er net -t o-be-cou nt ed-by -ni el s en/ .
53
measure TV v i ew ersh i p on i P ad s and ot h er mob i l e d ev i c es at some
unsp ec i f i ed t i me i n t h e f ut ure. Assumi ng f or t h e sak e of argument t h at
N i el sen may, one d ay, b egi n measuri ng Di sh Anyw h ere or Hop p er Transf ers
as p art of t h e C3 met ri c , none of t h i s reb ut s t h e f ac t t h at b et w een now and t h e
t i me of t ri al , Fox i s not get t i ng c red i t f or (or d emograp h i c i nf ormat i on ab out )
v i ew ersh i p of i t s p rograms on t h e unaut h ori z ed Di sh Anyw h ere and Hop p er
Transf er serv i c es. Th e d i st ri c t c ourt ' s general i z ed ob serv at i on t h at " ent i t i es
t h at gat h er ad v ert i si ng d at a are read y and w i l l i ng t o ad ap t t o t h e new
l and sc ap e" h ard l y c omp ensat es Fox f or t h e und i sp ut ed , i rrep arab l e h arm i t
f ac es ri gh t now . ER 310 (Ord er 13).
In summary, i t i s und i sp ut ed t h at ad v ert i sers rel y on C3 t o d et ermi ne
ad v ert i si ng rat es; t h at Di sh ' s unaut h ori z ed st reami ng and i P ad c op yi ng of
Fox' s p rogrammi ng i s not p resent l y c ap t ured b y C3; and t h at t h ese h arms are
not c urrent l y q uant i f i ab l e. Th eref ore, i t w as c l earl y erroneous and an ab use
of d i sc ret i on f or t h e d i st ri c t c ourt t o rul e t h at Fox' s c l ai m of h arm i s " not
ad eq uat el y sup p ort ed b y t h e rec ord . " ER 311 (Ord er at 14 ); Dreyf us, 697
F. 3d at 725 (t ri al c ourt c ommi t s c l ear error w h en i t s f ac t ual f i nd i ngs are
" i l l ogi c al , i mp l ausi b l e, or w i t h out sup p ort i n i nf erenc es t h at may b e d raw n
f rom t h e f ac t s i n t h e rec ord " ).
54
IV. Fox Will Succeed On It s Copyright Infringement And Breach
Of Cont ract Claims .
While t he dis t rict court did not dis cus s t he merit s of Fox's copyright
and breach of cont ract claims , Fox clearly demons t rat ed a lik elihood of
s ucces s . Becaus e Fox has s hown bot h a t hreat of irreparable harm and a
lik elihood of s ucces s on t he merit s , t he dis t rict court 's denial of Fox's
preliminary inj unct ion mot ion was an abus e of dis cret ion.
A. Dis h Is Exceeding The Scope Of It s Licens e.
As t he dis t rict court and t his Court have previous ly held, "[a] licens ee
infringes t he owner's copyright if it s us e exceeds t he s cope of it s licens e."
Fox Broadcas t ing Co. Inc. v. Dis h Net work , L.L.C., 905 F. Supp. 2d 1088,
1097 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quot ing Adobe Sys . Inc. v. One St op Micro, Inc., 84 F.
Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2000)); Sun Micros ys t ems , Inc. v. Micros oft
Copp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9t h Cir. 1999) ("[i]f ... a licens e is limit ed in
s cope and t he licens ee act s out s ide t he s cope, t he licens or can bring an act ion
for copyright infringement "); S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081,
1088 (9t h Cir. 1989) ("copyright licens es are as s umed t o prohibit any us e not
aut horized"); s ee als o 3 M. Niminer & D. Nimmer, NiNt iviER oN CoPY~~xT
10.15[A] (2012) (s ame); MDYlndus ., LLC v. Blizzard Ent m't , Inc., 629
F.3d 928, 939-41 (9t h Cir. 2010) (breach of cont ract ual condit ions t hat limit
s cope of licens e is copyright infringement ).
55
The RTC Agreement s ta tes tha t Dis h
. " ER 1802, 1831. ~ 1 The a greement f u rther s ta tes tha t Dis h " s ha l l
not . . . a u thorize the . . . retra ns mis s ion" of Fox's progra mming. ER 1800-
1801, 1805-1819. The s a me c ontra c t prov is ion a l s o prohib its Dis h f rom
a u thorizing the rec ording of Fox Progra ms , other tha n b y c ons u mers f or
priv a te home u s e. I d.
By its own a dmis s ion, Dis h now of f ers its s u b s c rib ers " l iv e a nd
rec orded tel ev is ion a nywhere on I nternet-c onnec ted ta b l ets , s ma rtphones a nd
PCs . " ER 1534-1535, 1542-1543. With Hopper Tra ns f ers , Dis h a u thorizes
its s u b s c rib ers to " ta ke their rec orded tel ev is ion progra ms a nd wa tc h them
ev en when no I nternet c onnec tion is a v a il a b l e, s u c h a s on a pl a ne. " ER 1544.
By expres s l y b rea c hing the c onditions of its l ic ens e a greement with Fox a nd
doing prec is el y wha t Fox prohib ited Dis h is exc eeding the s c ope of its
l ic ens e a nd inf ringing Fox's c opyrights . As s u c h, Fox is l ikel y to s u c c eed on
the merits of its c ontra c t of c ontra c t c l a ims a nd it c opyright inf ringement
c l a ims .
11
The a greement goes on to prov ide tha t " nothing c onta ined herein s ha l l b e
deemed to res tric t rights u nder a ppl ic a b l e l a w," b u t a s we s how inf ra , Dis h
ha s no extra-c ontra c tu a l right u nder the Copyright Ac t to retra ns mit progra ms
to its c u s tomers .
56
B. Dish Is Infringing The Public Performance Right.
As a copyright owner, Fox has the exclusive right to perform its
copyrighted works publicly.'Z 17 U.S.C. 106(4). In the case of an
audiovisual work like a television show, to "perform" the work means "to
show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it
audible." 17 U.S.C. 101. As is relevant here, to perform a work "publicly"
means to "transmit or otherwise communicate a performance of the work .. .
to the public, by means of any device or process." Id.
A service that retransmits live broadcast television signals to
subscribers over the Internet is publicly performing the programs contained in
the signal. See ivi, 691 F.3d at 278; BarryD~ille~, 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1143-46;
FilynOn, 2013 WL 4763414 at * 12-15; see also WTV Sys., 824 F. Supp. 2d at
1008-09 (streaming movies to subscribers over the Internet is a public
performance). In Ba~~yD~ille~, Judge Wu explained why this is. The
Copyright Act protects copyrighted works, such as episodes of copyrighted
television programs. Ba~r~yDriller, 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1143-46. When a
broadcast signal is retransmitted over the Internet so that the programs
contained in that signal can be viewed by members of the public, this is a
public performance. Id.; see also FilmOn, 2013 WL 4763414 at * 13-14; WTV
12
Fox owns valid copyrights in the programs at issue. ER 226, 239-262.
57
S y s . , 824 F. S upp. 2d a t 1010. Thus , i f a s e r v i c e s t r e a ms l i v e br oa dc a s t
pr ogr a mmi ng ov e r t he I nt e r ne t i nt o home s or t o mobi l e de v i c e s wi t hout
pe r mi s s i on f r om t he owne r of t he c opy r i ght s i n t he pr ogr a ms , t he s e r v i c e i s
i nf r i ngi ng t he c opy r i ght owne r 's e x c l us i v e r i ght t o pe r f or m t he wor ks
publ i c l y . S e e i v i , 691 F. 3d a t 278-79; Ba ~r y Dr i l l e r , 915 F. S upp. 2d a t 1143-
46; Fi l mOn, 2013 WL 4763414, a t * 13-14; s e e a l s o WTV S y s . , 824 F. S upp.
Zd a t 1009. Cons e que nt l y , be c a us e Di s h i s undi s put e dl y r e t r a ns mi t t i ng Fox 's
l i v e br oa dc a s t s i gna l ov e r t he I nt e r ne t wi t hout Fox 's pe r mi s s i on, Di s h i s
c ommi t t i ng c opy r i ght i nf r i nge me nt .
C. Di s h Ca nnot Cl a i m I t s S ubs c r i be r s Ar e "Doi ng" The
Tr a ns mi t t i ng.
I n t he pr oc e e di ngs be l ow, Di s h a r gue d t ha t , unde r Ca r t oon Ne t wor k
LP, LLLP v . CS C Hol di ngs , I nc . , 536 F. 3d 121 (2d Ci r . 2008)
("Ca bl e v i s i on"), i t c a nnot be a di r e c t i nf r i nge r be c a us e i t s s ubs c r i be r s a r e
a c t ua l l y t he one s who "do" t he r e t r a ns mi t t i ng whe n t he y l og ont o Di s h
Any whe r e a nd s e l e c t pr ogr a ms t o v i e w l i v e . ER 395. Di s h c l a i ms t ha t unde r
Ca bl e v i s i on's "v ol i t i ona l c onduc t " r ul e , t he s ubs c r i be r who pr e s s e s t he but t on
t o wa t c h a Fox pr ogr a m l i v e ov e r t he I nt e r ne t i s t he one who i s r e t r a ns mi t t i ng
Fox 's br oa dc a s t s i gna l . Thi s a r gume nt f a i l s .
I t i s we l l s e t t l e d i n t hi s Ci r c ui t t ha t whe n t he i s s ue i s t he publ i c
pe r f or ma nc e r i ght , i t doe s not ma t t e r who pr e s s e s t he but t on. Mul t i pl e c our t s
58
have hel d t hat when a s er vi c e d el i ver s vi d eo c ont ent over a wi r e (s uc h as t he
I nt er net ) t hat c ons umer s c an ac c es s by t ur ni ng on a d evi c e (s uc h as a
c omput er ) and s el ec t i ng s omet hi ng t o wat c h, t he s er vi c e not t he c ons umer
i s d oi ng t he t r ans mi t t i ng . J us t bec aus e a c ons umer mus t pr es s a but t on t o t ur n
on t he d evi c e and / or s el ec t s omet hi ng t o wat c h d oes not mean t hat s he i s
t r ans mi t t i ng t he pr og r am t o her s el f . See WTV Sys . , 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1009-
10 (s er vi c e t hat s t r eamed movi es over t he I nt er net t o s ubs c r i ber s ' c omput er s
was t r ans mi t t i ng t he movi es , and t he f ac t t hat i t s c us t omer s " i ni t i at e t he
t r ans mi s s i on by t ur ni ng on t hei r c omput er s and c hoos i ng whi c h of pl ai nt i f f s '
[ c ] opyr i g ht ed [ w] or ks t hey want t o wat c h i s i mmat er i al " ) ; On Command
Vi d eo Cor p. v. Col umbi a P i c t ur es I nd us . , 777 F. Supp. 787, 789-90 (N. D.
Cal . 1991) (s ys t em t hat t r ans mi t t ed movi es f r om a c ent r al VCR t o hot el r oom
t el evi s i ons was t r ans mi t t i ng t he movi es , and " t he f ac t t hat hot el g ues t s i ni t i at e
t hi s t r ans mi s s i on by t ur ni ng on t he t el evi s i on and c hoos i ng a vi d eo i s
i mmat er i al " ) ; s ee al s o B ar ~ i ^ yD~ i l l er , 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1140-41 (wher e
d ef end ant s r et r ans mi t t ed br oad c as t pr og r ammi ng vi a mi ni at ur e ant ennas
i nd i vi d ual l y as s i g ned t o s ubs c r i ber s , c our t g ave no c r ed enc e t o d ef end ant s '
c har ac t er i z at i on of t he s ys t em as mer el y of f er i ng " us er-d i r ec t ed pr i vat e
vi ewi ng [ s ] " ) . Thi s Cour t s houl d r ej ec t out of hand any at t empt by Di s h t o
c l ai m t hat i t c annot be d i r ec t l y l i abl e f or vi ol at i ng Fox' s exc l us i ve publ i c
59
performance ri g h t s becaus e i t s s ubs cri bers are al l eg ed l y d oi ng t h e
t rans mi t t i ng . ' 3
D. Di s h Cannot Cl ai m I t s I nt ernet Ret rans mi s s i ons Are
"Pri vat e. "
Rel y i ng on t h e aberrant , and much - cri t i ci z ed , Ameri can Broad cas t i ng
Cos . , I nc. v. Ae~eo, I nc. , 874 F. Supp. 2d 3 73 (S. D. N. Y. 2012), aff' d 722 F. 3 d
500 (2d . Ci r. 2013 ), Di s h h as al s o arg ued t h at i t i s not publ i cl y performi ng t h e
Fox Prog rams becaus e i t s I nt ernet ret rans mi s s i ons mus t be vi ewed as
s eparat e, pri vat e s t reams from each us er' s s et- t op box t o h er comput er or
mobi l e d evi ce. Th i s i s t h e arg ument Jud g e Wu rej ect ed i n Barry D~i l l er (and
wh i ch i s pres ent l y on appeal before t h i s Court ). See al s o Fi l mOn, 2013 WL
4763 414 at * 14 (fol l owi ng Barry Dri l l er).
I n Barry Dri l l er, t h e d efend ant s , l i k e Di s h h ere, offered a s ervi ce t h at
al l owed cus t omers t o wat ch l i ve broad cas t t el evi s i on over t h e I nt ernet . See
915 F. Supp. 2d at 113 9- 44. Th e Ba~~y Dri l l er d efend ant s arg ued t h at t h ere
was no publ i c performance becaus e each cus t omer wat ch i ng t el evi s i on over
t h e I nt ernet was recei vi ng a s i g nal s t reamed from h er pers onal mi ni at ure
ant enna- and - DVR s et up. I d . Th e onl y d i fference bet ween t h i s cas e and
Ba~ry D~i l l er i s t h at t h e Ba~ry Dri l l e~ d efend ant s us ed pers onal ant ennas and
13
I n any event , as d i s cus s ed above, aut h ori z i ng ot h ers t o ret rans mi t Fox' s
prog rammi ng over t h e I nt ernet woul d s t i l l cons t i t ut e a breach of t h e RTC
Ag reement .
Dish is u sin g se t- t o p bo xe s it l e a se s t o it s su bsc r ibe r s. In a c a r e f u l l y r e a so n e d
o p in io n , Ju dg e Wu a n a l y ze d t he l a n g u a g e a n d hist o r y o f t he Co p y r ig ht Ac t
a n d c o n c l u de d t ha t it did n o t m a t t e r ho w m a n y se p a r a t e t r a n sm issio n s we r e
in vo l ve d o r whe t he r- t he t r a n sm issio n s c a r n e f r o m se p a r a t e so u r c e s if t he
se r vic e is t r a n sm it t in g a sin g l e c o p y r ig ht e d wo r k ( i. e . , a t e l e visio n p r o g r a m )
t o m e m be r s o f t he p u bl ic , t he n it is p u bl ic l y p e r f o r m in g t ha t wo r k. Id. a t
1144- 45.
Ju dg e Wu 's a n a l y sis c o m p o r t s wit h t he p l a in l a n g u a g e o f t he Co p y r ig ht
Ac t , whic h st a t e s t ha t t o p e r f o r m a wo r k p u bl ic l y is t o " t r a n sm it o r o t he r wise
c o m m u n ic a t e a p e r f o r m a n c e o f t he wo r k . . . t o t he p u bl ic , by m e a n s o f a n y
de vic e o ~ p r o c e ss. " 17 U. S. C. 101 ( e m p ha sis a dde d). He r e , Dish is
o f f e r in g a se r vic e whe r e , f o r a m o n t hl y su bsc r ip t io n f e e , su bsc r ibe r s r e c e ive
br o a dc a st t e l e visio n sig n a l s o ve r t he In t e r n e t . The " de vic e o r p r o c e ss" Dish
u se s t o t r a n sm it t ho se sig n a l s c o n sist s o f Dish- p r o vide d se t- t o p bo xe s t ha t
e n c o de t he t e l e visio n sig n a l s a n d se n d t he m o ve r t he In t e r n e t . By m e a n s o f
t his " de vic e o r p r o c e ss, " Dish is t r a n sm it t in g c o p y r ig ht e d Fo x Pr o g r a m s t o it s
su bsc r ibe r s, who a r e m e m be r s o f t he p u bl ic . An d, a s Ju dg e Wu e xp l a in e d,
" [ t ] he st a t u t e p r o vide s t ha t t he r ig ht t o t r a n sm it is e xc l u sive `whe t he r t he
m e m be r s o f t he p u bl ic c a p a bl e o f r e c e ivin g t he p e r f o r m a n c e o r disp l a y
r e c e ive it in t he sa m e p l a c e o r in se p a r a t e p l a c e s a n d a t t he sa m e t im e o r a t
61
d i f f e r e n t t i m e s . " ' I d . a t 1144-45 ( q u o t i n g 17 U. S. C. 10 1) ; s e e a l s o Fi l m On ,
20 13 WL 4763414 a t * 13 ( s a m e ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , Di s h i s p u b l i c l y p e r f o r m i n g
t he p r o g r a m s .
V. The Ba l a n c e Of Ha r m s De c i d e d l y Fa vo r s A n I n j u n c t i o n .
A n y c l a i m b y Di s h t ha t i t w i l l b e ha r m e d i f i t c a n n o t c o n t i n u e
r e t r a n s m i t t i n g Fo x' s l i ve b r o a d c a s t p r o g r a m m i n g o ve r t he I n t e r n e t o r a l l o w i n g
i t t o b e c o p i e d o n t o s u b s c r i b e r s ' i P a d s s ho u l d b e d i s r e g a r d e d . Di s h i s n o t
s u p p o s e d t o b e o f f e r i n g t hi s s e r vi c e o r o f f e r i n g Ho p p e r Tr a n s f e r s i n t he f i r s t
p l a c e . No t o n l y t ha t , Di s h o b vi o u s l y a s s u m e d t he r i s k t ha t i t w o u l d b e
e n j o i n e d w he n i t c ho s e t o l a u n c h a n u n a u t ho r i z e d I n t e r n e t s t r e a m i n g s e r vi c e
a n d t o p r o m o t e i t s i l l e g a l s e r vi c e w i t h a m u l t i m i l l i o n -d o l l a r m a r k e t i n g b l i t z ,
w hi l e i t w a s a l r e a d y i n c o p y r i g ht l i t i g a t i o n w i t h Fo x. The b a l a n c e o f ha r m s
w e i g hs i n f a vo r o f a n i n j u n c t i o n . Tr i a d Sy s . Co r p . v. So u t he a s t e r n Exp r e s s
Co . , 64 F. 3d 1330 , 1338 ( 9 t h Ci r . 19 9 5) ( d e f e n d a n t " c a n n o t c o m p l a i n o f t he
ha r m t ha t w i l l b e f a l l i t w he n p r o p e r l y f o r c e d t o d e s i s t f r o m i t s i n f r i n g i n g
a c t i vi t i e s " ) ; s e e a l s o Ca d e n c e De s i g n Sy s . , I n c . v. A va n t ! Co r p . , 125 F. 3d 824,
830 ( 9 t h Ci r . 19 9 7) ( " [w ]he r e t he o n l y ha r d s hi p t ha t t he d e f e n d a n t w i l l s u f f e r
i s l o s t p r o f i t s f r o m a n a c t i vi t y w hi c h ha s b e e n s ho w n l i k e l y t o b e i n f r i n g i n g ,
s u c h a n a r g u m e n t i n d e f e n s e m e r i t s l i t t l e e q u i t a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n " ) ( q u o t i n g
Tr i a d Sy s . Co p p . , 64 F. 3d a t 1338) .
62
VI. The Public In t er es t Favor s An In j un ct ion .
The Supr eme Cour t has made clear t hat upholdin g copy r ight pr ot ect ion
is in t he public in t er es t . Eldr ed v. As hcr of t , 537 U.S. 186, 212 n .18 (2003).
The ivi cour t r ecen t ly r eaf f ir med t he s t r on g public in t er es t in pr ot ect in g a
copy r ight holder ' s ex clus ive in t er es t s an d a " public in t er es t in r ewar din g an d
in cen t iviz in g cr eat ive ef f or t s ." 691 F.3d at 287. The " public has a
compellin g in t er es t in pr ot ect in g copy r ight own er s ' mar k et able r ight s ...an d
t he econ omic in cen t ive t o con t in ue cr eat in g t elevis ion pr ogr ammin g"
becaus e, wit hout t hes e pr ot ect ion s , t he " s t or e of k n owledge" may be
dimin is hed, an d " en cour agin g t he pr oduct ion of cr eat ive wor k ...ult imat ely
s er ves t he public' s in t er es t in pr omot in g t he acces s ibilit y of s uch wor k s ." Id.
" Plain t if f s ar e copy r ight own er s of s ome of t he wor ld' s mos t r ecogn iz ed an d
valuable t elevis ion pr ogr ammin g, " an d plain t if f s ' wor k s " pr ovide[ ] a valuable
s er vice t o t he public, in cludin g, in t er alia, educat ion al, his t or ic an d cult ur al
pr ogr ammin g, en t er t ain men t , an impor t an t s our ce of local n ews cr it ical f or an
in f or med elect or at e, an d ex pos ur e t o t he ar t s ." 691 F.3d at 288. As t he
Secon d Cir cuit caut ion ed, if t he plain t if f s ' wor k s can be copied an d s t r eamed
over t he In t er n et again s t t heir will, t heir " des ir e t o cr eat e or igin al t elevis ion
pr ogr ammin g s ur ely would be dampen ed." Id. at 288. Her e, as in ivi an d t he
63
o t h e r c a s e s c i t e d a bo ve wh e r e i nfr i nge me nt h a s be e n e nj o i ne d , t h e p u bl i c
i nt e r e s t s t r o ngl y fa vo r s a n i nj u nc t i o n t o p r o t e c t Fo x's r i gh t s i n i t s va l u a bl e
t e l e vi s i o n p r o gr a mmi ng.
CONCLUSION
Fo r t h e fo r e go i ng r e a s o ns , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t 's o r d e r d e ny i ng a
p r e l i mi na r y i nj u nc t i o n s h o u l d be r e ve r s e d .
De c e mbe r 19, 2013 R e s p e c t fu l l y Su bmi t t e d ,
B y : ~
R i c h a r d L. St o ne
R i c h a r d L. St o ne
And r e w J . Th o ma s
Da vi d R . Si nge r
Amy M. Ga l l-e go s
J E IV IV E x & B Lo c K LLP
633 We s t 5t h St r e e t , Su i t e 3600
Lo s Ange l e s , CA 90071
Pa u l M. Smi t h
J E r Ir 1E R & B Lo c K LLP
1099 Ne w Yo r k Ave nu e , NW,
Su i t e 900
Wa s h i ngt o n, DC 20001
At t o r ne y s fo r Ap p e l l a nt s
STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to F e d e ral Rul e o f Ap p e l l ate Pro ce d ure 3 4 ( a) , Ap p e l l ants
re q ue st th at o ral argume nt o f th i s ap p e al be p e rmi tte d . Oral argume nt w i l l
assi st th i s Co urt i n d e ci d i ng th e ap p e al .
De ce mbe r 19, 2013 Re sp e ctful l y Submi tte d ,
By : Z
Ri ch ard L. Sto ne
Ri ch ard L. Sto ne
And re w J . Th o mas
Davi d R. Si nge r
Amy M. Gal l e go s
J EIvi vEx & BLo cK LLP
63 3 We st 5 th Stre e t, Sui te 3 600
Lo s Ange l e s, CA 90071
Paul M. Smi th
J EIVIVER & BLo cx LLP
1099 Ne w Yo rk Ave nue , NW,
Sui te 900
Wash i ngto n, DC 20001
Atto rne y s fo g Ap p e l l ants
65
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I c e r t i f y t h a t , pur sua nt t o Fe d e r a l Rul e o f Appe l l a t e Pr o c e d ur e
32(a )(7)(C) a nd Ni nt h Ci r c ui t Rul e 32-1, t h e f o r e go i ng Ope ni ng Br i e f i s
pr o po r t i o na t e l y spa c e d , h a s a t y pe f a c e o f 14 po i nt s o r mo r e , a nd c o nt a i ns
13, 843 wo r d s.
De c e mbe r 19, 2013 Re spe c t f ul l y Submi t t e d ,
B ~ Z~ '~
y ~
Ri c h a r d L. St o ne
Ri c h a r d L. St o ne
And r e w J . Th o ma s
Da vi d R. Si nge r
Amy M. Ga l l e go s
.TENNER &BLOCK LLP
633 We st 5t h St r e e t , Sui t e 3600
Lo s Ange l e s, CA 90071
Pa ul M. Smi t h
J Er r l vEx & BLo c K LLP
1099 Ne w Yo r k Ave nue , NW,
Sui t e 900
Wa sh i ngt o n, DC 20001
At t o r ne y s f o r Appe l l a nt s
..
CERTIFICATE OF RELATED CASES
P u r s u a n t t o Nin t h Cir c u it Ru le 2 8 - 2 . 6 , Co u n s el f o r Ap p ella n t s s t a t es
t ha t t her e a r e n o r ela t ed c a s es p en d in g in t his Co u r t .
Dec ember 1 9 , 2 01 3 Res p ec t f u lly Su bmit t ed ,
By :
Ric ha r d L. St o n e
Ric ha r d L. St o n e
An d r ew J . Tho ma s
Da vid R. Sin g er
Amy M. G a llego s
J ENNER &, BLOCK LLP
6 33 Wes t 5 t h St r eet , Su it e 36 00
Lo s An geles , CA 9 0071
P a u l M. Smit h
J ENNER &BLOCK LLP
1 09 9 New Yo r k Aven u e, NW,
Su it e 9 00
Wa s hin gt o n , DC 2 0001
At t o r n ey s f o r Ap p ella n t s
6 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby c ert i f y t ha t on Dec ember 19, 2013, a c opy of t he f oregoi ng
Bri ef of P l a i nt i f f- Appel l a nt s wa s s erved by U.S. Ma i l a nd Mes s enger.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP (*VIA MESSENGER)
Wi l l i a m A. Mol i ns ki (Ba r No. 145186)
777 Sout h Fi gueroa St reet , Sui t e 3200
Los Angel es , Ca l i f orni a 90017
Annet t e L. Hurs t (Ba r No. 148738)
405 Howa rd St reet
Sa n Fra nc i s c o, Ca l i f orni a 94105- 2669
E. Jos hua Ros enkra nz
P et er A. Bi c ks
El ys e D. Ec ht ma n
Li s a T. Si mps on
51 W. 52nd St .
New York, New York 10019
DURIE TANGRI LLP
Ma rk. A. Leml ey (Ba r No. 155830)
Mi c ha el P a ge (Ba r No. 154913)
217 Lei des dorf f St reet
Sa n Fra nc i s c o, Ca l i f orni a 94111
(*VIA U.S. MAIL)
(*VIA U.S. MAIL)
(*VIA U.S. MAIL)
Dec ember 19, 2013 Res pec t f ul l y Submi t t ed,
B
~~'`~'
Y
Ri c ha rd L. St one
Ri c ha rd L. St one
Andrew J. Thoma s
Da vi d R. Si ng er
Amy M. Ga l l egos
JENrrEx & BLoc x LLP
633 Wes t 5t h St reet , Sui t e 3600
Los Angel es , CA 90071
P a ul M. Smi t h
JENNER &BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW,
.:
S u i t e 900
Washi ngt on, DC 20001
A t t or ne y s for A p p e l l ant s
.
CERTIFICATE FOR BRIEF IN PAPER FORMAT
( a t t a c h t h i s c e r t i f i c a t e t o t h e e nd o f e a c h pa pe Y c o py b~i e ~
9t h Ci r c u i t Ca s e Nu mbe r ( s ): 13-56818
I, Je a n M. Do h e r t y , c e r t i f y .t h a t t h i s br i e f i s i de nt i c a l t o
t h e v e r s i o n s u bmi t t e d e l e c t r o ni c a l l y o n [ da t e ] De c 19, 2013
Da t e De c e mbe r 19, 2013
S i g na t u r e s / Je a n M. Do h e r t y
( e i t h e r ma nu a l s i g na t u r e o r " s / " pl u s t ype d na me i s a c c e pt a bl e )

Fox v. Dish - Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fox v. Dish - Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

No.

Potrebbero piacerti anche