In its opinion upholding an injuction against FilmOn X, the judge referred to Aereo as a "similar service that also appears to infringe...copyrights." September 13, 2013 7:22 AM PDT (Credit: LG/Samsung) FilmOn X, an Aereo copycat that also uses arrays of tiny antennas to stream local over-the-air broadcast television over the Internet, stumbled again in court, and the ruling may have hit Aereo with some collateral damage. Thursday, a U.S. court in D.C. rejected FilmOn X's motion to keep operating or rein in its order to cease functioning almost everywhere in the U.S. It instead affirmed its preliminary injunction from earlier this week against the Aereo-like service. It solidifies a win for broadcasters that are suing not only FilmOn X (previously known as Aereokiller and BarryDriller.com) but also Aereo itself, which is backed by IAC Chairman Barry Diller and has so far been much more adept at keeping court rulings on its side. Related stories TV broadcasters win preliminary injunction against FilmOn X Apple joins the iPhone trade-in game Aereo could arrive on Android as soon as September Aereo CEO: Service will turn a profit before turning in 1M subscribers Aereo heads to Miami, Houston, and Dallas in September In her opinion upholding the FilmOn X injunction, Judge Rosemary Collyer for the U.S. District Court of D.C. questioned the decisions by another court that has sided with Aereo -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in New York. Collyer referred to Aereo as a "similar service that also appears to infringe...copyrights" and said she disagreed with the New York court that was "myopically focused" on how Aereo transmitted programming rather than whether the programming was a public performance. The broadcasters are suing the two services for violating their public performance rights for copyrighted television programs. Aereo declined to comment on the latest decision by Collyer. FilmOn X launched in August 2012 as a rival to Aereo. Both companies, which do not pay retransmission licensing fees to the networks, argue that they are simply providing consumers with individual antennas that let anyone watch over-the-air programming for free. Aereo charges a subscription for delivering the video streams online and storing programming like a DVR. The emergence of FilmOn X has been a boon for broadcasters in their fight against Aereo, which is more sophisticated in its legal approach. The major networks first sued FilmOn quickly after its launch, and won a preliminary injunction in California in December that prevented the service from retransmitting broadcasters' signals there and in other Western states. Collyer's injunction in D.C. expanded upon the the California one by enjoining LiveOn X from operating nearly nationwide, excluding only the region where Aereo has been successful in brushing aside the broadcasters' injunction attempts. But it isn't certain whether the D.C. and California decisions will be relevant to Aereo. In addition to the suit in New York that Aereo is fighting, it is also battling a suit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. Earlier this week, it filed a response in its Massachusetts case to Collyer's injunction ruling, saying Collyer incorrectly incorrectly intrepreted the copyright law and that it isn't a relevant decision in the Massachusetts court. However, the diverging direction of opinions in the different districts raises the possibility that courts will issue directly conflicting final rulings, and that raises the prospect of the Supreme Court being called upon to be the final arbiter.
In its opinion upholding an injuction against FilmOn X, the judge referred to Aereo as a "similar service that also appears to infringe...copyrights."
(Credit: LG/Samsung)
FilmOn X, an Aereo copycat that also uses arrays of tiny antennas to stream local over-the-air broadcast television over the Internet, stumbled again in court, and the ruling may have hit Aereo with some collateral damage.
Thursday, a U.S. court in D.C. rejected FilmOn X's motion to keep operating or rein in its order to cease functioning almost everywhere in the U.S. It instead affirmed its preliminary injunction from earlier this week against the Aereo-like service.
It solidifies a win for broadcasters that are suing not only FilmOn X (previously known as Aereokiller and BarryDriller.com) but also Aereo itself, which is backed by IAC Chairman Barry Diller and has so far been much more adept at keeping court rulings on its side.
Related stories
- TV broadcasters win preliminary injunction against FilmOn X
- Apple joins the iPhone trade-in game
- Aereo could arrive on Android as soon as September
- Aereo CEO: Service will turn a profit before turning in 1M subscribers
- Aereo heads to Miami, Houston, and Dallas in September
In her opinion upholding the FilmOn X injunction, Judge Rosemary Collyer for the U.S. District Court of D.C. questioned the decisions by another court that has sided with Aereo -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in New York. Collyer referred to Aereo as a "similar service that also appears to infringe...copyrights" and said she disagreed with the New York court that was "myopically focused" on how Aereo transmitted programming rather than whether the programming was a public performance.
The broadcasters are suing the two services for violating their public performance rights for copyrighted television programs. Aereo declined to comment on the latest decision by Collyer.
FilmOn X launched in August 2012 as a rival to Aereo. Both companies, which do not pay retransmission licensing fees to the networks, argue that they are simply providing consumers with individual antennas that let anyone watch over-the-air programming for free. Aereo charges a subscription for delivering the video streams online and storing programming like a DVR.
The emergence of FilmOn X has been a boon for broadcasters in their fight against Aereo, which is more sophisticated in its legal approach. The major networks first sued FilmOn quickly after its launch, and won a preliminary injunction in California in December that prevented the service from retransmitting broadcasters' signals there and in other Western states.
Collyer's injunction in D.C. expanded upon the the California one by enjoining LiveOn X from operating nearly nationwide, excluding only the region where Aereo has been successful in brushing aside the broadcasters' injunction attempts.
But it isn't certain whether the D.C. and California decisions will be relevant to Aereo. In addition to the suit in New York that Aereo is fighting, it is also battling a suit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. Earlier this week, it filed a response in its Massachusetts case to Collyer's injunction ruling, saying Collyer incorrectly incorrectly intrepreted the copyright law and that it isn't a relevant decision in the Massachusetts court.
However, the diverging direction of opinions in the different districts raises the possibility that courts will issue directly conflicting final rulings, and that raises the prospect of the Supreme Court being called upon to be the final arbiter.
