FilmOn Appeal of Contempt Finding is Rejected
The 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals rejected FilmOn's appeal of a contempt of court ruling and accompanying $90,000 fine against the streaming video company, said an opinion. The contempt finding stemmed from the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
ABC v. Aereo, when the court said the Aereo streaming service was illegally performing broadcaster content. After that decision, FilmOn -- already then under an injunction not to perform copyrighted material -- issued a news release announcing a VOD offering that used nearly identical technology to Aereo, and continued showing broadcast content. FilmOn's rationale was that the language used by the Supreme Court compared Aereo to a cable system, Tuesday's order said. FilmOn argued the law on the legality of its service was made murky by the high court decision, the opinion said. But FilmOn hadn't applied for the compulsory license that allows cable carriers to offer broadcast content, and language in an opinion isn't the same as a change in the law, the 2nd Circuit said. Considering FilmOn’s “history of misreading changes in federal copyright law and being held in contempt for violating multiple federal injunctions,” a prudent response by FilmOn to the Aereo decision “should have included proceeding with caution,” the 2nd Circuit said. FilmOn had argued the district court's fine was too high, that CEO Alkiviades David shouldn't have personally been found in contempt, and that it shouldn't have to pay attorney's fees for its broadcaster opponents, but the 2nd Circuit rejected all arguments. “FilmOn’s history of aggressively pushing the bounds of the Injunction and of repeatedly neglecting to petition the district court for clarifications further highlights the sanction’s coercive purpose and effect,” the 2nd Circuit said.