Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Filmon X, LLC
966 F. Supp. 2d 30
D.D.C.2013Background
- FilmOn X retransmits local broadcast programming over the Internet using an array of networked mini-antennas with per-user assignments and a DVR-like system.
- Each user is associated with a unique antenna/directory that creates a user-specific copy; data are deleted when viewing ends.
- Plaintiffs (major national networks and other copyright holders) allege FilmOn X infringes their exclusive public performance rights by streaming without licenses.
- FilmOn X relies on a one-to-one, per-user architecture and argues Cablevision and Aereo II show no public performance.
- Court considers BarryDriller persuasive, converts preliminary injunction hearing to a status conference, and grants a nationwide injunction subject to circuit limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public performance under Transmit Clause | BarryDriller/Cablevision support infringement. | Aereo framework requires no public performance due to private transmissions. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed; FilmOn X violates §101/§106(4). |
| Likelihood of success on the merits under Transmit Clause | Transmit Clause covers broad ‘device or process’ and public transmission to the public. | Cablevision/Aereo I/II show private transmissions not to the public. | Court sides with plaintiffs; FilmOn X infringes. |
| Irreparable harm without injunction | Unauthorized streaming harms ad revenue, retransmission deals, and lawful online distribution. | Harm is purely economic, could be compensable. | Irreparable harm established. |
| Balance of harms | Injunctive relief needed to protect copyright and bargaining positions. | Injunction could chill innovation and harm FilmOn X growth. | Public interest and harms favor plaintiffs; balance favors injunction. |
| Scope of injunction | Rule 502(b) supports nationwide relief. | Limit to Ninth Circuit per BarryDriller; Aereo II binding elsewhere. | Grant nationwide relief except within the Ninth Circuit where Aereo II binds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 836 F.2d 599 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (transmit clause focuses on audience capable of receiving the transmission)
- Aereo, Inc. v. Warner/Chappell, 874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Aereo I denial of injunction based on Cablevision precedent)
- Aereo II, 712 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 2013) (upholds noninfringement finding; adopts Cablevision framework with four guideposts)
- BarryDriller Content Sys., PLC v. Fox Television, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (California court grants injunction; rejects Cablevision/Aereo logic for broad transmit clause)
- Nat’l Cable Television Ass’n, Inc. v. Broad. Music, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 614 (D.D.C. 1991) (public performance breadth supports broad interpretations)