What Could This Recent FilmOn X Case Ruling Mean For the Future of Streaming Media & Copyright Law?
We live in an ever-changing world, and the easy availability of streaming media has service providers and courts scrambling to come up with solutions to provide the best services while staying within the realm of current copyright laws.
Technology evolves at such a fast pace that it usually leaves the law behind in the dust. This creates quite significant problems for technology creators and lawyers alike as they scramble to comply with the old, sometimes outdated, laws that will inevitably apply to the new tech.
The recent case between web streaming service FilmOn X and major broadcast networks is another example of this dilemma. Read about the Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al v. Aereokiller, LLC, et al case and what it could mean for the future of streaming media and copyright law.
Victory for Broadcast Networks
The case in question, against web streaming service FilmOn X, was heard by the Ninth Circuit to determine the applicability of the compulsory license provision of the Copyright Act (Section 111) to online streaming services. Section 111 has been used by Traditional cable companies, like Comcast, for compulsory access to broadcast media content.
The Court was unsure of how to rule, stating as much as “FilmOn and other internet-based retransmission services are neither clearly eligible nor clearly ineligible for the compulsory license Section 111 makes available.” Accordingly, the Court relied on the opinion of the US Copyright Office that Congress did not mean for Section 111 to apply to web services.
The ruling is a huge win for major networks ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, the plaintiffs in the case. Effectively, it requires web services to negotiate pricing and pay networks for the rights to stream their content.
Overturning Prior Decision
This decision is regarded as a landmark decision in that it overturns a prior ruling from 2015 which gave streaming web services the rights granted by Section 111. The original case began in 2014 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 2014 that the technology used by FilmOn X and then-competitor (now defunct) Aereo was in violation of copyright law.
FilmOn X turned to Section 111 as a defense, and despite precedent from other courts ruling that Sec. 111 only applied to cable companies, District Judge George H. Wu ruled that no distinction exists.
The Battle Goes On
FilmOn X already made a bid for the Ninth Circuit to review the lower court’s ruling, arguing that the lower court failed to delineate a workable legal standard to determine eligibility for a compulsory license. There’s also an identical case pending in D.C.’s Circuit Courts and arguments were just heard recently. Another similar case is still pending before the Seventh Circuit court. If either of these cases goes in favor of streaming services, the U.S. Supreme Court could be next.
New Copyright for New Times
While FilmOn X is disappointed with the current decision, these new cases could still create a split that will require another revision of copyright law interpretation for an ever-changing world. The company believes that the clear intent of Section 111 was to allow for the use of new technology to be used by broadcasters, which also allows for new entrants in the field.
For now, however, FilmOn X is bound by the current ruling, and both businesses and copyright attorneys will be watching and waiting to see what the future brings. However, if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Streaming Service FilmOn X Loses TV License Battle
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
What Could This Recent FilmOn X Case Ruling Mean For the Future of Streaming Media & Copyright Law?
We live in an ever-changing world, and the easy availability of streaming media has service providers and courts scrambling to come up with solutions to provide the best services while staying within the realm of current copyright laws.
Technology evolves at such a fast pace that it usually leaves the law behind in the dust. This creates quite significant problems for technology creators and lawyers alike as they scramble to comply with the old, sometimes outdated, laws that will inevitably apply to the new tech.
The recent case between web streaming service FilmOn X and major broadcast networks is another example of this dilemma. Read about the Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al v. Aereokiller, LLC, et al case and what it could mean for the future of streaming media and copyright law.
Victory for Broadcast Networks
The case in question, against web streaming service FilmOn X, was heard by the Ninth Circuit to determine the applicability of the compulsory license provision of the Copyright Act (Section 111) to online streaming services. Section 111 has been used by Traditional cable companies, like Comcast, for compulsory access to broadcast media content.
The Court was unsure of how to rule, stating as much as “FilmOn and other internet-based retransmission services are neither clearly eligible nor clearly ineligible for the compulsory license Section 111 makes available.” Accordingly, the Court relied on the opinion of the US Copyright Office that Congress did not mean for Section 111 to apply to web services.
The ruling is a huge win for major networks ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, the plaintiffs in the case. Effectively, it requires web services to negotiate pricing and pay networks for the rights to stream their content.
Overturning Prior Decision
This decision is regarded as a landmark decision in that it overturns a prior ruling from 2015 which gave streaming web services the rights granted by Section 111. The original case began in 2014 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 2014 that the technology used by FilmOn X and then-competitor (now defunct) Aereo was in violation of copyright law.
FilmOn X turned to Section 111 as a defense, and despite precedent from other courts ruling that Sec. 111 only applied to cable companies, District Judge George H. Wu ruled that no distinction exists.
The Battle Goes On
FilmOn X already made a bid for the Ninth Circuit to review the lower court’s ruling, arguing that the lower court failed to delineate a workable legal standard to determine eligibility for a compulsory license. There’s also an identical case pending in D.C.’s Circuit Courts and arguments were just heard recently. Another similar case is still pending before the Seventh Circuit court. If either of these cases goes in favor of streaming services, the U.S. Supreme Court could be next.
New Copyright for New Times
While FilmOn X is disappointed with the current decision, these new cases could still create a split that will require another revision of copyright law interpretation for an ever-changing world. The company believes that the clear intent of Section 111 was to allow for the use of new technology to be used by broadcasters, which also allows for new entrants in the field.
For now, however, FilmOn X is bound by the current ruling, and both businesses and copyright attorneys will be watching and waiting to see what the future brings. However, if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
