LAS VEGAS -- That News Corp. would consider making Fox a pay-TV network if Aereo is legally able to deliver that and other broadcast network stations’ signals to subscribers without paying retransmission consent caught some NAB attendees by surprise. “We're not going to sit idly by” with the upstart online service able to transmit stations to Aereo subscribers, News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey said in a Q-and-A with NAB CEO Gordon Smith. “Clearly there’s a path available to us, that’s a business solution available to us, if we can’t get our rights protected in another way.” Making Fox a cable network isn’t Carey’s preference, he said Monday at the NAB show.
The International Trade Administration published notices in the April 8 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
There’s fodder in the recent federal court decision giving Capitol Records summary judgment in its legal fight against digital music resale service ReDigi to support granting the major broadcast networks the preliminary injunction they seek to bar Dish Network’s commercial-skipping AutoHop feature, said lawyers for ABC. The attorneys’ notice of supplemental authority was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in New York (http://1.usa.gov/YXPZTX). ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC have sued to bar AutoHop on contributory-infringement grounds, while Dish is seeking a declaratory ruling from the court that AutoHop is legal. In the ReDigi case, a federal judge found that the digital music service violated Capitol’s copyrights by allowing users to copy files to company servers and then resell those files to other users. ABC lawyers attached a copy of the 14-page ReDigi decision to their notice, excerpting a brief passage in which the court discussed how ReDigi’s “volitional conduct” supported granting summary judgment to Capitol. The excerpt reads: “ReDigi’s Media Manager scans a user’s computer to build a list of eligible files that consists solely of protected music purchased on iTunes. While that process is itself automated, absolving ReDigi of direct liability on that ground alone would be a distinction without a difference. The fact that ReDigi’s founders programmed their software to choose copyrighted content satisfies the volitional conduct requirement and renders ReDigi’s case indistinguishable from those where human review of content gave rise to direct liability.” In its order, the court went on to argue that ReDigi played a “fundamental and deliberate role” in which it “affirmatively brokered” illegal transactions, making it an “active participant” in the act of copyright infringement. Lawyers for the major networks have argued Dish has played much the same role in marketing and distributing AutoHop as a copyright-infringing feature on its Hopper DVRs. Dish spokesman Bob Toevs declined comment on the ABC lawyers’ filing. He said in a statement that the AutoHop case “is grounded in the Supreme Court’s 1984 Sony Betamax decision. That decision, and just plain common sense, say that consumers have the right to record television broadcasts and watch that content at their convenience.”
There’s fodder in the recent federal court decision giving Capitol Records summary judgment in its legal fight against digital music resale service ReDigi (CED April 3 p1) to support granting the major broadcast networks the preliminary injunction they seek to bar Dish Network’s commercial-skipping AutoHop feature, said lawyers for ABC. The attorneys’ notice of supplemental authority was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in New York (http://1.usa.gov/YXPZTX). ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC have sued to bar AutoHop on contributory-infringement grounds, while Dish is seeking a declaratory ruling from the court that AutoHop is legal. In the ReDigi case, a federal judge found that the digital music service violated Capitol’s copyrights by allowing users to copy files to company servers and then resell those files to other users. ABC lawyers attached a copy of the 14-page ReDigi decision to their notice, excerpting a brief passage in which the court discussed how ReDigi’s “volitional conduct” supported granting summary judgment to Capitol. The excerpt reads: “ReDigi’s Media Manager scans a user’s computer to build a list of eligible files that consists solely of protected music purchased on iTunes. While that process is itself automated, absolving ReDigi of direct liability on that ground alone would be a distinction without a difference. The fact that ReDigi’s founders programmed their software to choose copyrighted content satisfies the volitional conduct requirement and renders ReDigi’s case indistinguishable from those where human review of content gave rise to direct liability.” In its order, the court went on to argue that ReDigi played a “fundamental and deliberate role” in which it “affirmatively brokered” illegal transactions, making it an “active participant” in the act of copyright infringement. Lawyers for the major networks have argued Dish has played much the same role in marketing and distributing AutoHop as a copyright-infringing feature on its Hopper DVRs. Dish spokesman Bob Toevs declined comment on the ABC lawyers’ filing but said in a statement that the AutoHop case “is grounded in the Supreme Court’s 1984 Sony Betamax decision. That decision, and just plain common sense, say that consumers have the right to record television broadcasts and watch that content at their convenience.”
There’s fodder in the recent federal court decision giving Capitol Records summary judgment in its legal fight against digital music resale service ReDigi (WID April 3 p1) to support granting the major broadcast networks the preliminary injunction they seek to bar Dish Network’s commercial-skipping AutoHop feature, said lawyers for ABC. The attorneys’ notice of supplemental authority was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in New York (http://1.usa.gov/YXPZTX). ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC have sued to bar AutoHop on contributory-infringement grounds, while Dish is seeking a declaratory ruling from the court that AutoHop is legal. In the ReDigi case, a federal judge found that the digital music service violated Capitol’s copyrights by allowing users to copy files to company servers and then resell those files to other users. ABC lawyers attached a copy of the 14-page ReDigi decision to their notice, excerpting a brief passage in which the court discussed how ReDigi’s “volitional conduct” supported granting summary judgment to Capitol. The excerpt reads: “ReDigi’s Media Manager scans a user’s computer to build a list of eligible files that consists solely of protected music purchased on iTunes. While that process is itself automated, absolving ReDigi of direct liability on that ground alone would be a distinction without a difference. The fact that ReDigi’s founders programmed their software to choose copyrighted content satisfies the volitional conduct requirement and renders ReDigi’s case indistinguishable from those where human review of content gave rise to direct liability.” In its order, the court went on to argue that ReDigi played a “fundamental and deliberate role” in which it “affirmatively brokered” illegal transactions, making it an “active participant” in the act of copyright infringement. Lawyers for the major networks have argued Dish has played much the same role in marketing and distributing AutoHop as a copyright-infringing feature on its Hopper DVRs. Dish spokesman Bob Toevs declined comment on the ABC lawyers’ filing but said in a statement that the AutoHop case “is grounded in the Supreme Court’s 1984 Sony Betamax decision. That decision, and just plain common sense, say that consumers have the right to record television broadcasts and watch that content at their convenience.”
The International Trade Administration published notices in the April 5 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The International Trade Administration issued the preliminary results of its antidumping administrative review on polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan (A-583-841).. The ITA calculated a preliminary zero AD rate for Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd., the sole respondent. If the ITA continues to find a zero AD rate for Chang Chun in the final results, it will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of the company's subject merchandise during the period of review without regard to AD duties. These preliminary results are not in effect. The ITA may modify them in the final results of this review and change the estimated AD cash deposit rate for this companies.
The International Trade Administration issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on glycine from China (A-570-836). The ITA said Baoding Mantong, the only company under review, did not cooperate in the review, and so was assigned to the China-wide entity on the basis of adverse facts available (AFA). The ITA also rescinded the review for 25 companies that did not have shipments to the U.S. during the period of review. The new rates are effective April 8, and will be implemented by CBP soon.
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s application of total adverse facts available to Mukand, Ltd.’s antidumping duty rate, despite the company’s omission of only one piece of data, in the 2009-10 administrative review of stainless steel bar from India (A-533-810). Mukand had declined to provide information on cost differences between producing stainless steel bar of various sizes, but had otherwise fully cooperated. CIT agreed with the ITA in its application of total AFA, finding that the requested information was so important to calculating Mukand’s AD rate that the rate could not have been accurately calculated without it.
Rulings and pending cases involving rebroadcasting TV over the Internet have huge implications for the TV industry and copyright law, and could be headed for the Supreme Court, said several communications attorneys at an FCBA event Wednesday night. On Monday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision denying broadcasters a preliminary injunction against Aereo, which lets customers watch New York City-area TV broadcasts online by leasing them personal DVRs and antennas (CD April 2 p8). However, in December, a similar injunction against a competing Internet TV company called Aereokiller was upheld in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.