Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Aereokiller, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
851 F.3d 1002 (2017)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
FilmOn X (FilmOn) (defendant) used antennas to capture copyrighted over-the-air broadcast programming and then, without the consent of the copyright holders, retransmitted the programming over the Internet to paying subscribers. Fox Television Stations, Inc., along with other broadcast stations and copyright holders (collectively, Fox) (plaintiffs), sued FilmOn for copyright infringement. It was undisputed that FilmOn’s service was a public performance of the retransmitted works within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976 (the act) and therefore infringed the copyright holders’ exclusive performance rights. FilmOn argued, however, that its activities were covered by § 111 of the act, which provided that a cable system was eligible for a compulsory license allowing FilmOn to retransmit a performance or display of a work that was originally broadcast by someone else without having to obtain the copyright owner’s consent. Under the act, the cable system had to pay a nominal fee to the United States Copyright Office for the license but was protected from infringement liability. The district court found that FilmOn was a cable system for purposes of § 111 and entered judgment for FilmOn. Fox appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.