A group of major broadcasters, in a cert...

is “urgently needed,” said the filing. “This Court has had little tolerance for business models built on the for-profit exploitation of the copyrighted works of others. And this Court has repeatedly recognized the important public interest in protecting the viability of over-the-air broadcast television.” Broadcaster attempts to get the court to hear their case against streaming TV service Aereo aren’t likely to succeed while their cases in other jurisdictions are still in progress, said Stifel Nicolaus and Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant in separate emails. “Given the seeming non-ripeness of the current court rulings (which are all preliminary injunctions, not post-trial rulings), it may not be easy for broadcasters to persuade the Supreme Court to hear the case,” said Gallant. Aereo’s case in the 2nd Circuit is still proceeding on the merits in U.S. District Court in New York, and Aereo and its competitor FilmOn X are still embroiled in ongoing court cases in California (WID Aug 29 p7), Utah (WID Oct 9 p15), Washington, D.C. (WID Sept 9 p11), and Massachusetts (WID July 17 p5). In Massachusetts, a federal judge Thursday also denied a preliminary injunction sought against Aereo by Hearst. “Broadcasters will have to overcome general Supreme Court reluctance to address cases at the preliminary injunction phase,” said Stifel Nicolaus. Both analyses agreed that the prospects for high court review could change if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against FilmOn in its preliminary injunction appeal there, creating a circuit split. “It would be the Second Circuit (Aereo is legal) vs. Ninth Circuit (Aereo is illegal),” said Gallant. “And resolving Circuit splits is a leading reason why the Court agrees to devote its scarce resources to any given case."