Emergency motions to stay and limit a nearly nationwide preliminary injunction against streamingnTV service FilmOn X were denied in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said JudgenRosemary Collyer in an opinion filed Thursday. “The conduct prohibited by the Preliminary Injunction isnuncompensated infringement of those holders’ exclusive right to public performance of their works, andnthe public interest is not harmed by requiring FilmOn X to cease infringement.” Collyer agreed withnbroadcasters that Aereo’s wins in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals don’t mean that FilmOn will winnits D.C. case. “FilmOn X has simply recycled the same arguments that this Court rejected,” said thenbroadcasters’ opposition motion, pointing to FilmOn’s contentions that the injunction undercuts otherncourts and will harm its business. “The mere existence of two non-controlling, widely-criticized casesnsupporting FilmOnX does not create a strong likelihood that the D.C. Circuit will reverse the injunction."nFilmOn had argued that being enjoined throughout the nation — except in the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuitn— will cause it to lose customers to similar service Aereo, which isn’t enjoined anywhere. That’sn“unsupportable” said the plaintiff filings: “FilmOnX’s argument boils down to the plea that it should benallowed to continue to infringe because there is another infringing service in operation.” Filings by FilmOnnalso show that it has a substantial international following that would be unaffected by the injunction,nbroadcasters said. The court should also reject FilmOn’s argument that the injunction bond the broadcastersnare required to pay should be increased from $250,000 to $2.75 million, the filing said. FilmOn X hasn'tnpresented any evidence "beyond the mere say-so of counsel that $250,000 would not be sufficient toncover its potential losses, and Plaintiffs have more than sufficient resources in the unlikely event that theninjunction was erroneously issued and FilmOn X incurs more than $250,000 in losses," said Collyer. “Itndoesn't really harm us,” FilmOn CEO Alki David told us in an email. His service has many agreementsnwith independent channels that won’t be affected by the injunction, and will still be able to stream the majornbroadcasters in the 2nd Circuit, where the injunction doesn’t apply, he said. “The Networks are a mustnhave to be a real pro service but we can wait to get them ... no biggie.” David said he will wait for Aereonto win the copyright case brought against it by Hearst in Boston, where FilmOn already has an “antennanfarm.” Fox praised the decision and said it fully expects to “continue to prevail,” in an email. David’snattorney Ryan Baker, of Baker Marquart, confirmed his client will abide by the court's order to cease streaming copyrighted material, but will appeal the decision.
展开▼
