...
首页> 外文期刊>Telecom A.M >Mass Media Notes
【24h】

Mass Media Notes

机译:大众传媒笔记

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

A group of major broadcasters, in a cert petition filed Friday, asked the U.S. Supreme Court tornoverturn the decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to not grant a preliminary injunctionrnagainst Aereo. The Supreme Court’s intervention is “urgently needed,” said the filing. “This Court hasrnhad little tolerance for business models built on the for-profit exploitation of the copyrighted works of others.rnAnd this Court has repeatedly recognized the important public interest in protecting the viability ofrnover-the-air broadcast television.” Broadcaster attempts to get the court to hear their case against streamingrnTV service Aereo aren’t likely to succeed while their cases in other jurisdictions are still in progress,rnsaid Stifel Nicolaus and Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant in separate emails. "Given the seemingrnnon-ripeness of the current court rulings (which are all preliminary injunctions, not post-trial rulings),rnit may not be easy for broadcasters to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case,” said Gallant. Aereo'srncase in the 2nd Circuit (CD April 2 p8) is still proceeding on the merits in U.S. District Court in NewrnYork, and Aereo and its competitor FilmOn X are still embroiled in ongoing court cases in California(CDrnAug 29 p5), Utah (CD Oct 9 p21), Washington, D.C.(CD Sept 9 p18), and Massachusetts (CD July 17rnp6). In Massachusetts, a federal judge Thursday also denied a preliminary injunction sought against Aereornby Hearst. “Broadcasters will have to overcome general Supreme Court reluctance to address cases atrnthe preliminary injunction phase,” said Stifel Nicolaus. Both analyses agreed that the prospects for highrncourt review could change if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against FilmOn in its preliminaryrninjunction appeal there, creating a circuit split. ”It would be the Second Circuit (Aereo is legal) vs. NinthrnCircuit (Aereo is illegal),” said Gallant. “And resolving Circuit splits is a leading reason why the Courtrnagrees to devote its scarce resources to any given case.”
机译:在周五提交的一份请愿书中,一群主要广播公司要求美国最高法院推翻第二美国巡回上诉法院关于不对Aereo发出初步禁令的裁决。该文件说,“迫切需要最高法院的干预”。 “该法院对基于营利性开发他人版权作品的商业模式几乎没有容忍。并且,该法院一再认识到保护广播电视的可行性的重要公共利益。” Stifel Nicolaus和Guggenheim Partners分析师Paul Gallant在另一封电子邮件中表示,广播公司试图让法院审理其针对流媒体电视服务Aereo的诉讼,而他们在其他司法管辖区的诉讼仍在进行中。盖兰特说:“鉴于目前法院的判决似乎是不成熟的(所有判决都是初步禁令,而不是审判后的判决),广播公司可能很难说服最高法院审理此案。”第二巡回法庭(CD 4月2日p8)仍在继续进行,由美国纽伦约克地区法院审理,而Aereo及其竞争对手FilmOn X仍卷入犹他州加利福尼亚州(CDrnAug 29 p5)正在进行的诉讼中(CD Oct 9 p21) ),华盛顿特区(9月9日CD 18日)和马萨诸塞州(CD 7月17日rnp6)。在马萨诸塞州,一名联邦法官周四也否认了针对Aereornby Hearst的初步禁令。“广播员将不得不克服最高法院不愿处理案件的意愿。 Stifel Nicolaus表示。两种分析都同意,如果第9届美国巡回上诉法院在其对初审禁令的上诉中对FilmOn作出裁定,高等法院复审的前景可能会改变。电路分裂。盖伦特说:“这将是第二巡回赛(Aereo合法)与NinthrnCircuit(Aereo非法)。” “解决巡回法庭分歧是法院同意将其稀缺资源用于任何特定案件的主要原因。”

著录项

  • 来源
    《Telecom A.M 》 |2013年第199期| 15-15| 共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号