WPIX, INC. v. Ivi, Inc.
765 F. Supp. 2d 594
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs are major copyright owners of broadcast programming and include networks, PBS, MLB, studios, and local stations.
- ivi retransmits plaintiffs' broadcast signals over the Internet nationwide to subscribers via the ivi TV player.
- ivi claims eligibility for a Section 111 cable compulsory license, arguing the Internet transmission fits the definition of a cable system.
- ivi does not obtain consent from plaintiffs and operates outside FCC regulatory compliance, asserting its transmissions are Internet-based.
- Court must determine whether ivi is a cable system under Section 111 and, if not, address the copyright infringement claims along with related harms.
- Court relies on Copyright Office interpretations and SHVERA findings to assess Congressional intent and technological scope of Section 111.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ivi a cable system under Section 111? | ivi falls within Section 111 as a cable system with nationwide retransmission. | ivi is a cable system and qualified for a Section 111 license because Internet retransmissions are permissible. | No; ivi is not a cable system under Section 111. |
| Does Section 111 apply to nationwide Internet retransmissions? | Section 111 applies only to localized cable systems, not nationwide Internet services. | Section 111 should extend to services like ivi that retransmit broadcast signals nationwide via the Internet. | Section 111 does not apply to nationwide Internet retransmissions. |
| What is the proper interpretive weight of the Copyright Office SHVERA interpretations? | Copyright Office interpretations support the view that Internet retransmissions are not covered by Section 111. | SHVERA interpretations do not preclude ivi from qualification under Section 111. | Copyright Office interpretations carry substantial weight and support non-coverage for Internet retransmissions. |
| Does the public interest favor an injunction against ivi's streaming? | Injunction preserves incentives for content creation and prevents unauthorized distribution. | Injunction would harm innovation and reduce consumer access to programming. | Public interest supports injunction to protect copyright owners. |
| Have plaintiffs shown irreparable harm without an injunction? | Unrestricted streaming harms programming value, advertising revenue, and licensing control. | Harms are speculative and can be measured by damages, not irreparable harm. | Yes; irreparable harm shown, justifying preliminary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (preliminary injunction standard post-eBay and requirement to show irreparable harm on facts)
- eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court 2006) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions; no automatic irreparable harm presumption)
- Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Kirkwood, 63 F. Supp. 2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (cautions against expanding Section 111 beyond Congressional intent)
- Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., 836 F.2d 599 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (context for when compulsory licenses are appropriate in cable systems)
- Tasini v. New York Times Co., 206 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2000) (narrow interpretation of exceptions to copyright rights)