Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC
| Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | C.D. Cal. |
| Full case name | Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Fox Television Holdings, Inc. v. Dish Network L.L.C.; Dish Network Corporation |
| Decided | January 12, 2015 |
| Citation(s) | No. CV12-04529-DMG (SHx) (C.D. Cal. November 7, 2012),(C.D. Cal. January 12, 2015) and No. 12-57048 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013) |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | In 2012 the District Court denied the preliminary injunction. Fox appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. CV12-04529-DMG (SHx)) The 9th Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the rehearing was denied. In January 2015, the District court granted in part summary judgment. |
| Subsequent action(s) | The summary judgment was denied in relationship with some of the alleged contractual infringements |
| Case opinions | |
| The district court granted partial summary judgment concluding that there were nor direct neither secondary copyright infringement of Fox’s Copyrights by Dish, but there were contractual infringements. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Dolly M. Gee |
| Keywords | |
Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC (C.D. Cal. January 12, 2015), is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California by granting partial summary judgment denied most part of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet connected device (Dish Anywhere). The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox’s (and the four major broadcast networks) prime time programs (Prime Time Any Time or PTAT) and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).
Fox argued that Dish Network was guilty of copyright infringement and breach of contract. The district court held that Dish Anywhere did not infringe Fox’s public performance right because the service only could be used by subscribers to get access to their own recordings. The recording action and the later transmission depended on the subscribers engage in a volitional action. Therefore, there was no direct infringement from Dish. Neither was there a secondary infringement of the company because Dish’s users did not publicly perform by using Dish Anywhere.
Dish had license from Fox that allows it to transmit Fox’s programing to its subscribers. When a user transmits programing from one device to another, he or she accesses something that is already in his or her possession from a different device, and this action is not a public performance within the meaning of the statute. The court held that PTAT did not directly infringe Fox’s reproduction right because Dish did not engage in a volitional conduct. The recording was made in exclusive response to the user’s command. Also, the court ruled that PTAT used by Dish’s subscribers was fair use according Sony case.
Most, but not all, of Fox's claims were dismissed; ultimately an agreement was reached whereby AutoHop would only become available for Fox stations seven days after a program is transmitted; terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
According to the courts' previous holdings, and the summary judgment decision the factual background was as follows:
On May 24, 2012 Fox sued Dish for copyright infringement and breach of contract. On August 22, 2012 Fox filled a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Dish from operating, distributing, selling, or offering Dish Anywhere, PTAT, AutoHop and any comparable features. On November 7, 2012, the district court denied the motion. Fox appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. On July 25, 2013 9th Circuit affirmed. Fox’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied. In January 12, 2015 the District court granted partial summary judgment.
...
Wikipedia