Aereokiller in the Ninth Circuit [telecom]

By Harry Cole, FHH Commonlaw Blog, August 28, 2013

May it please the court? Maybe, maybe not. YOU be the judge. > > Even those practiced in the art of appellate advocacy have > trouble correctly guessing, on the basis of oral arguments, how > a court will ultimately rule.... > > The post-argument guessing game is particularly hard for the > Great Unwashed because appellate arguments tend to be somewhat > intimate affairs, not widely publicized beforehand, seldom > recorded for extensive public consumption. Any press accounts of > arguments tend to shed only limited light on precisely what was > said, making it hard for the reader to draw any conclusions. > > But things are different in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the > Ninth Circuit which, as it turns out, posts audio recordings of > its arguments on its website within 24 hours of each argument.

Continued:

formatting link

As T-D readers will recall from my previous posts about Aereo, copyright owners, including broadcast station licensees, have sued it claiming copyright infringement. Aereo has successfully defended itself in District Court (Southern District of New York) and the Court of Appeals (Second Circuit).

Another company providing a service similar to Aereo's, formerly called Aereokiller but now known as FilmOn X, has been operating in Los Angeles. Copyright owners have sued that company as well, and in this case, the District Court (Central District of California) ruled against it. FilmOn has appealed to the Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) which has not yet issued a ruling.

If the Ninth Circuit rules against FilmOn, two Appeals Court decisions will be in conflict. It will then be up to the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

As the article cited above notes, oral arguments in Ninth Circuit's proceeding have been posted on line.

formatting link

Neal McLain