9th Circuit OKs Dish Network's commercial-skipping technology
This round of the battle over commercials goes to the consumers. And Dish Network Corp.
July 26, 2013 at 05:58 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This round of the battle over commercials goes to the consumers. And Dish Network Corp.
Dish Network has developed a technology that delights TV addicts and drives broadcasters to despair. Its so-called Hopper automatically skips over commercials on programs that users have recorded on the digital video recorder (DVR).
After the Hopper debuted in May 2012, broadcasters wasted no time in filing a lawsuit, claiming that the technology violated copyright laws. Spearheading the movement was Fox Broadcasting, which sought to block the “Auto-Hop” feature of Hopper. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling rejecting Fox's request.
The 9th Circuit wrote that consumers should be able to do whatever they want with the Fox programs they've recorded, as long as they aren't reselling its content, relying on the 1984 Supreme Court case that decided Betamax video recordings of TV programs were legal.
“Fox owns the copyrights to the television programs, not to the ads aired in the commercial breaks,” the court wrote.
Though at first blush, this ruling seems favorable to consumers, experts told The Washington Post that consumers could see cable prices increase, as broadcasters try to compensate for ad-skipping technology that could cost them funding.
Fox is, understandably, not particularly pleased with the 9th Circuit's decision. “This is not about consumer choice or advances in technology. It is about a company devising an unlicensed, unauthorized service that clearly infringes our copyrights and violates our contract,” Fox spokesman Scott Grogin said in a statement.
Read more about Dish Network's Hopper, and other TV lawsuits, on InsideCounsel:
This round of the battle over commercials goes to the consumers. And
After the Hopper debuted in May 2012, broadcasters wasted no time in filing a lawsuit, claiming that the technology violated copyright laws. Spearheading the movement was Fox Broadcasting, which sought to block the “Auto-Hop” feature of Hopper. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling rejecting Fox's request.
The 9th Circuit wrote that consumers should be able to do whatever they want with the Fox programs they've recorded, as long as they aren't reselling its content, relying on the 1984 Supreme Court case that decided Betamax video recordings of TV programs were legal.
“Fox owns the copyrights to the television programs, not to the ads aired in the commercial breaks,” the court wrote.
Though at first blush, this ruling seems favorable to consumers, experts told The
Fox is, understandably, not particularly pleased with the 9th Circuit's decision. “This is not about consumer choice or advances in technology. It is about a company devising an unlicensed, unauthorized service that clearly infringes our copyrights and violates our contract,” Fox spokesman Scott Grogin said in a statement.
Read more about
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250