{"id":1575,"date":"2013-03-23T17:06:50","date_gmt":"2013-03-23T17:06:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1575"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:02","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:02","slug":"no-hopping-around-copyrights-fox-seeks-another-preliminary-injunction-against-dishs-hopper-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/no-hopping-around-copyrights-fox-seeks-another-preliminary-injunction-against-dishs-hopper-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"No Hopping Around Copyrights: Fox Seeks Another Preliminary Injunction Against Dish\u2019s \u201cHopper\u201d Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Friday, March 22, 2013, by Virginia Wooten<br \/>\nAutomatically skipping over advertisements may sound like heaven to many television viewers, but for the major television networks this ad-skipping technology seems like a potential nightmare.\u00a0 As of February 2013, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/2013-02-22\/fox-seeks-to-block-dish-tv-s-new-on-the-go-features.html\">Fox Broadcasting Company<\/a> is seeking a preliminary injunction against the second-generation of Dish Network\u2019s Hopper technology.\u00a0 It is important to note that this is not the first time Fox has brought suit against Dish\u2019s Hopper technology.\u00a0 Back in May of 2012, <a href=\"http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2012\/12\/fox-asks-appeals-court-to-stop-dishs-ad-skipping-dvr-right-now\/\">Fox brought a suit<\/a> against Dish for alleged copyright violations by the first-generation of Dish\u2019s Hopper technology, which Fox lost on the district court level.\u00a0 Currently, Fox is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.<br \/>\nThe first-generation Dish <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dish.com\/technology\/hopper\/\">Hopper<\/a> utilized a DVR technology named the \u201cAutoHop\u201d feature to allow users to automatically skip over commercial advertisements. \u00a0While Autohop is beneficial for many television viewers, Fox claimed this feature threatened to devalue advertisements for television networks and decrease the networks\u2019 profits from advertisement sales.\u00a0 In comparison, the second-generation Dish Hopper has an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dish.com\/technology\/dish-anywhere\/?\">\u201con-the-go\u201d<\/a> feature that allows customers to watch recorded or live television from mobile devices, like smartphones or tablets.\u00a0 With the unveiling of this second-generation technology, Fox hopes it can <a href=\"http:\/\/arstechnica.com\/tech-policy\/2013\/02\/fox-blasts-newest-dish-hopper-in-court-wants-it-off-the-market\/\">convince the court<\/a> that Dish is violating both contracts with Fox and copyrights owned by Fox.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>As more companies continue to improve and modify DVR systems, these entities must be aware of the line between what is allowable and what is infringement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In allegations in the first lawsuit, Fox <a href=\"http:\/\/www.techdirt.com\/articles\/20120525\/04185919074\/tv-networks-file-legal-claims-saying-skipping-commercials-is-copyright-infringement.shtml\">claimed<\/a> that Dish Network committed direct copyright infringement, derivative copyright infringement, and breaches of contract.\u00a0 Fox alleged that the copies made by the Dish equipment directly infringed on their exclusive rights as copyright holders. \u00a0Fox also contended that Dish was vicariously liable for the infringement by its subscribers who use the Dish technology.\u00a0 As in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.museum.tv\/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase\"><i>Sony Betamax<\/i><\/a><i> <\/i>case, however, the court found that the recordings were mere time shifting by Hopper users and not direct copyright violations.\u00a0 Although <a href=\"http:\/\/www.techdirt.com\/articles\/20121113\/02171921026\/details-ruling-over-dishs-autohopper-show-fox-lost-nearly-all-important-issues.shtml\">most consider Fox the loser<\/a> in this first case, the network did have a small victory in that the court favored them in the last part of a fair use analysis for the \u201ceffect of the use on the market.\u201d\u00a0 This favorable analysis, however, regarded a copy that the Dish Hopper makes for quality assurance and not for customers, so the victory remains a small, if not, insignificant one.<br \/>\nIn 1999, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.howstuffworks.com\/dvr.htm\">DVR<\/a> increasingly began to take over the home recording market that VCRs had once dominated. \u00a0DVRs are now a common occurrence in most homes across the United States, and companies continue to introduce better DVR technology to compete for a larger portion of the market.\u00a0 Dish\u2019s ad-skipping and on-the-go DVR are a few of many new products being introduced to customers, and Fox has expressed fear that these technologies may create incentives for other companies to use DVR technology that infringes on copyrights owned by television networks.\u00a0 As more companies continue to improve and modify DVR systems, these entities must be aware of the line between what is allowable and what is infringement. \u00a0Although this debate may soon be settled in the courtroom, companies should also look at alternatives, such as modifying contracts, to avoid these potential copyright battles in court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Friday, March 22, 2013, by Virginia Wooten Automatically skipping over advertisements may sound like heaven to many television viewers, but for the major television networks this ad-skipping technology seems like a potential nightmare.\u00a0 As of February 2013, Fox Broadcasting Company is seeking a preliminary injunction against the second-generation of Dish Network\u2019s Hopper technology.\u00a0 It is <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/no-hopping-around-copyrights-fox-seeks-another-preliminary-injunction-against-dishs-hopper-technology\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1575"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1575"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1575\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7612,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1575\/revisions\/7612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}