Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, L.C.C.
905 F. Supp. 2d 1088
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Fox owns copyrights to Fox primetime programs and licenses via RTC and separate licensing to streaming services.
- Dish retransmits Fox programs under RTC; 2010 Letter Agreement governs VOD and related restrictions.
- Hopper set-top box with DVR and VOD features introduced January 2012; PTAT records primetime across four networks; AutoHop enables skipping ads for PTAT recordings.
- QA copies are created for AutoHop to verify marking announcements and ensure skip accuracy; QA copies are Dish-initiated.
- Fox filed suit May 24, 2012 alleging PTAT and AutoHop infringe Fox copyrights and breach RTC/2010 Agreement; Fox seeks preliminary injunction; Court denies relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PTAT infringes Fox copyrights directly | Fox argues PTAT copies infringe distinct rights | Dish contends copies are user-initiated, not Dish-made | PTAT copies not direct infringement by Dish |
| Whether PTAT constitutes derivative infringement by Dish | Fox seeks derivative liability for facilitating infringement | No direct infringement by users; no basis for derivative liability | No likelihood of derivative infringement shown |
| Whether QA copies of AutoHop breach RTC/2010 Agreement | Fox asserts QA copies breach copying restrictions | PTAT copies are permissible; AutoHop QA copies violate only if copying occurred by Dish | AutoHop QA copies breach RTC; PTAT copies do not violate RTC/2010 Agreement as analyzed |
| Whether Fox will suffer irreparable harm | Infringement harms Fox beyond monetary damages | Harm is largely calculable; not irreparable | Irreparable harm not shown; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (derivative liability requires copying by others; time-shifting via Betamax is fair use)
- Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (causation-based liability; who makes the copy determines direct infringement)
- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 478 F.Supp.2d 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (RS-DVR is not direct infringement when copy is user-initiated)
- Grokster, Ltd. v. MGM, 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (secondary liability requires intentional encouragement of infringement)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of direct infringement; copying and ownership)
- Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (fair use when copying serves study/understanding of unprotected elements)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (four fair-use factors; transformative use weighs in)
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 796 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1986) (fourth fair-use factor assesses market impact)
- LoopNet, Inc. v. 4th Cir., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) (causation-based liability; copying as conduit)
- Netcom On-Line Commc’n Serv., Inc. v. Internet Eng’g Group, 907 F.Supp.1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (copying via service provider; volition/causation analysis)