Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fox v. Aereokiller - Brief of Amici Curiae the Copyright Alliance et al in Support of Affirmance

Fox v. Aereokiller - Brief of Amici Curiae the Copyright Alliance et al in Support of Affirmance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18 |Likes:
Published by Devlin Hartline
Brief of Amici Curiae the Copyright Alliance et al in Support of Affirmance
Brief of Amici Curiae the Copyright Alliance et al in Support of Affirmance

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Devlin Hartline on May 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
N
OS
.
 
13-55156-cv(L),
 
13-55157-cv(CON), 13-55226-cv(XAP)and 13-55228-cv(XAP)
United States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit
FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC.; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILMCORPORATION; FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
 – v. – AEREOKILLER, LLC; ALKIVIADES DAVID; FILMON.TV NETWORKS,INC.; FILMON.TV, INC.; FILMON.COM, INC.,
 Defendants-Appellants.
 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THECENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. 2:12-CV-06921-GW-JCGEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 
BRIEF OF
 AMICI CURIAE
THE COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE,THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY,THE CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, AND VARIOUSPROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
S
ANDRA
A
ISTARS
 Executive Director C
OPYRIGHT
A
LLIANCE
 1224 M Street, NW, Suite 101Washington, DC 20005(202) 540-2247E
LEANOR 
M.
 
L
ACKMAN
 
Counsel of Record 
M
ARY
E.
 
ASENBERGER 
  N
ANCY
E.
 
W
OLFF
 C
OWAN
,
 
D
E
B
AETS
,
 
A
BRAHAMS
&
 
S
HEPPARD
LLP41 Madison Avenue, 34
th
Floor  New York, New York 10010(212) 974-7474
 Attorneys for Amici Curiae
Case: 13-55156 05/03/2013 ID: 8616043 DktEntry: 65-2 Page: 1 of 42
 
C-1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
amicus curiae
The Copyright Alliance states that it does not have a parentcorporation, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of 
amicus
’ stock.Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
amicus curiae
The Association for Competitive Technology states that itdoes not have a parent corporation, and that no publicly held corporationowns 10% or more of 
amicus
’ stock.Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
amicus curiae
The Center for Individual Freedom states that it does not havea parent corporation, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of 
amicus
’ stock.
Case: 13-55156 05/03/2013 ID: 8616043 DktEntry: 65-2 Page: 2 of 42
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................... C-1TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................. i-iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... iii-vINTEREST OF
 AMICI 
................................................................................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 6ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 9I.
 
THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE DISTRICTCOURT’S PROPER RULING BELOW RATHER THAN FOLLOW THE SECOND CIRCUIT’SREASONING IN
CABLEVISION 
............................................. 9A.
 
The
Cablevision
Decision Is a Poor Blueprint for Copyright and Law Technology ......................................... 111.
 
The Legal and Practical Impacts of 
Cablevision
Have Been LoomingConcerns for Creators of ExpressiveWorks ..................................................................... 112.
 
Leading Copyright Scholars Agree ThatThe
Cablevision
Decision is Problematic .............. 14a.
 
The Ruling is Premised on LegalError ................................................................ 15 b.
 
The Reasoning Leaves The Door Open to The Whittling Away of ThePerformance Right as NewTechnology Develops ..................................... 18
Case: 13-55156 05/03/2013 ID: 8616043 DktEntry: 65-2 Page: 3 of 42

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->