Blogs

GUEST BLOG: No Copyright Infringement for Skipping Ads

07.26.13

BARRY BARNETT GUEST BLOGGER

Barry Barnett has been a Guest Blogger in the past, his Blawgletter provides great thoughts, and insights. I read his blogs regularly. Over the years Barry and I have had a number of cases together and he is an outstanding trial partner at Susman Godfrey.

You Have the Right to Skip Fox Ads, Ninth Circuit Rules

Rupert Murdoch’s TV empire in the U.S. has lost its bid to stop you from avoiding the ads that Fox embeds in its shows — yourGlees, your The Simpsonses, and your So You Think You Can Dances.

The Ninth Circuit turned back Fox’s appeal of an order that denied its motion to enjoin Dish from providing its PrimeTime Anytime recording feature to subscribers. Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dish Network, L.L.C., No. 12-57048 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013).

Fox argued that Dish had promised in its rebroadcast license not to let subscribers fast-forward through ads and not to make Fox content available "on demand". Fox also claimed that PrimeTime Anytime resulted in both direct and secondary infringement of Fox’s copyrights in its programming content.

The panel held that Fox hadn’t proven infringement of its copyrights by Dish. Subscribers — not Dish — made copies of the Fox shows by flipping a switch, the court noted. That meant Dish did not infringe directly. Nor did Dish’s conduct make it guilty of secondary infringement. Because the subscribers made copies mainly for "time-shifting" purposes, the panel ruled, they had a valid "fair use" defense, and their fair use also exonerated Dish.

The contract issues vexed the panel more. The ruling against Fox turned on a squinty view of what "distribute . . . on an interactive, time-delayed, video-on-demand or similar basis" means. Does giving subscribers a chance to copy and replay Fox content amount to distributing it on a "basis" "similar" to "time-delay[]" or "video-on-demand"? The panel didn’t decide, but it hinted that it very well might.
 

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top