Aereo’s decision not to oppose broadcasters’ attempt to...

cert petition asking the high court to overturn a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that rejected a preliminary injunction against Aereo (CD Oct 15 p15). “We believe the justices are generally reluctant to review appeals of preliminary injunction decisions and so far there is no circuit split, which can invite high court review,” Stifel said in a research note (http://bit.ly/1jY0Hnl). This may change if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals soon upholds a district court decision to grant broadcasters a preliminary injunction against FilmOn X, an Aereo-like service, said the analysts. These actions could spur retransmission consent changes next year, they said. If the broadcasters don’t shoot down Aereo’s service in court, “they could start to push hard for Congress to write new legislation to ensure they receive Internet video provider payments for their programming,” they said. The “largely-unaddressed ‘copying’ element of broadcasters’ lawsuit makes this case too early-stage for Supreme Court review,” said Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant. The courts have barely begun addressing broadcasters’ argument that Aereo’s system makes unlawful copies of broadcasters’ shows, he said in a research note. If the Supreme Court is going to rule on Aereo next year, “it probably needs to announce by January that it will hear the case,” he said. If broadcasters win, the Aereo threat is extinguished, he said. “If broadcasters lose, they can seek legislative change by Congress, where they would likely have the upper hand.” FilmOn X asked the 9th Circuit to overturn a preliminary injunction against it (CD Aug 29 p5). A similar appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also is pending (CD Sept 13 p22). Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Engine Advocacy urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn a decision by the U.S. District Court in Washington. The law doesn’t grant copyright holders complete control over the distribution and quality of their works, they said in a friend-of-the-court brief (http://bit.ly/1dxK5hx). “Fair use allows the public to make copies of varying quality in many circumstances, including home recordings of TV programs.” The existence of a service like FilmOn X “does not appreciably increase the risk of a broadcast program being redistributed illegally on the Internet by third parties,” it said. In a separate brief, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Center for Democracy and Technology and other groups asked the court to approach the case in a way that preserves the holding and principles of the Cablevision case, during which an appeals court found that Cablevision doesn’t infringe copyright by launching a DVR service. The court should avoid any legal theories “that would cast a pall over wide swaths of the modern technological landscape, including the burgeoning cloud computing industry,” they said. CTIA, USTelecom and the Internet Infrastructure Coalition filed along with CCIA and CDT. The groups aren’t taking a stance on either party, they said.