A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument in Fox's ongoing copyright challenge to Dish's time-shifting, web-shifting, ad-skipping service.
x was looking to use broadcaster's recent victory in the Aereo case in the Supreme Court to buttress his argument, including pointing out that Dish had argued that it was merely an equipment provider, an Aereo argument that the Supremes rejected. It also pointed out the Supremes had refected Aereo's argument (which it said was Dish's as well) that a performance was not public under the Copyright Act if each sub watches a unique stream.
Fox's lawyer, Richard Stone, argued that Aereo was also essentially about attaching a Slingbox to a DVR. But that got some pushback.
One judge countered that it was "completely different technology" and said that while that was the argument, "the Supreme court has all sorts of caveats in the opinion about how this was about Aereo and nothing else and a lot of the ‘nothing elses’ seem to be pretty similar to Slingbox.
Dish's lawyer, Josh RosenKranz, said it was "pretty clear" in the record that the "sling" technology introduced no new capabilities or was uniquely threatening. "There is no difference between the Sling box and the sling features at issue in this case. Dish said digital portability has been around for almost a decade, and Fox did not complain until now. Dish says that if Fox has not suffered any harms in the previous nine years that the technology was available, the court was well within its right not to grant an injunction based on irreparable harm.
Source & More: multichannelnews.com
x was looking to use broadcaster's recent victory in the Aereo case in the Supreme Court to buttress his argument, including pointing out that Dish had argued that it was merely an equipment provider, an Aereo argument that the Supremes rejected. It also pointed out the Supremes had refected Aereo's argument (which it said was Dish's as well) that a performance was not public under the Copyright Act if each sub watches a unique stream.
Fox's lawyer, Richard Stone, argued that Aereo was also essentially about attaching a Slingbox to a DVR. But that got some pushback.
One judge countered that it was "completely different technology" and said that while that was the argument, "the Supreme court has all sorts of caveats in the opinion about how this was about Aereo and nothing else and a lot of the ‘nothing elses’ seem to be pretty similar to Slingbox.
Dish's lawyer, Josh RosenKranz, said it was "pretty clear" in the record that the "sling" technology introduced no new capabilities or was uniquely threatening. "There is no difference between the Sling box and the sling features at issue in this case. Dish said digital portability has been around for almost a decade, and Fox did not complain until now. Dish says that if Fox has not suffered any harms in the previous nine years that the technology was available, the court was well within its right not to grant an injunction based on irreparable harm.
Source & More: multichannelnews.com
