National Football League v. Primetime 24, 211 F.3d 10 WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676 - Essay Example

Case Review and Principles Governing Application of Privacy Related Torts The case number 99-9244 and 99-9388, National Football League, the Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, the Defendant-Appellant was contended from January 25, 2000 and ruled on April 28, 2000. In this case, Primetime 24, the defendant-Appellant, have appealed against a court’s ruling that granted a permanent injunction that prevents Primetime 24 from airing National Football League games to Canada by applying for a motion to dismiss.

The defendant argued that NFL failed to indicate a prerogative upon which relief can be issued since all the actions protested happened beyond United States’ border. In the case’s previous history, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 636(c), National Football League took a legal action against Primetime 24 for copyright violation and sought for an injunctive relief and statutory damages. National Football League accused Primetime 24 of going beyond their statutory license offered for certain U.S. retransmissions by the Satellite Home Viewer Act by transmitting patented NFL football game telecasts to Canada (Van Graafeiland et al 1).

The Plaintiff had argued that though the Satellite Home Viewer Act approved the transmission of the program to only “unserved households” within United States, the defendant recurrently conveyed NFL game broadcasts to areas and regions beyond United States. National Football League also argued that it had not granted Primetime 24 the prerogative to distribute broadcasts of NFL to other regions beyond United States. The appeals court upheld the earlier decision of the court to issue a permanent injunction to Primetime 24 (Van Graafeiland et al 1).

The case number 12-2786 and 12-2807, WNET, Thirteen, et al, the Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants vs. Aereo, Inc, et al, the Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendant-Appellants, vs. Aereo, Inc, the Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, was contented from November30, 2012 and decided on April 1, 2013. The two groups of plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal against a district court’s decision to deny them a motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendant, AEREO, Inc. In the case’s previous history, the two plaintiffs had filed distinct prerogatives on copyright infringement.

The plaintiffs had claimed numerous theories, which included violation of the public performance right, violation of the right of reproduction, and causative violation. WNET, together with the co-plaintiffs, moved for a preliminary injunction that prevented Aereo from conveying television broadcasts to its subscribers while its programs were still being aired. The two groups of plaintiffs had concurred to move to the court following the other and pursue the motion for a preliminary injunction concurrently.

The appeal court affirmed and upheld the district court’s decision to deny the plaintiff's motion of a preliminary injunction on Aereo Inc, the defendant-appellee. In the National Football League vs. Primetime 24 appeal case, the court stated that, citing David [v. Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc., 697 F. Supp. [752] at 759 [(S.D.N.Y.1988)], the most logical interpretation to the Copyright Act is to maintain that a public performance or display engrosses “every phase in the procedure by which a sheltered effort progresses its ways to its audience” (Van Graafeiland et al 1).

Citing WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., 693 F.2d 622, 624-25 (7th Cir.1982), the court also put into account whether a transitional carrier had openly performed patented telecasts by seizing program signals, modifying them and conveying them to cable television systems (Van Graafeiland et al 1). The court also established that the Copyright Act delineated “perform, or exhibition openly” adequately to engross both direct and indirect conveyance to the public. Under this analysis, Primetime’s broadcast of signals ceased in the United States is a step in the procedure by which National Football League patented job progresses its way to an open audience.

Therefore, Primetime transmitted material that was owned by National Football League. In contrast, in the WNET, Thirteen, et al, vs. Aereo Inc, vs. Aereo, Inc, case, the court determined that Aereo’s broadcasts of exceptional copies of telecasts generated at the client’s requests and broadcasted while the programs are still being transmitted on television do not amount to “public performances” of the plaintiffs’ patented constituents under Cablevision. Before the court made the ruling, it had determined whether the plaintiffs showed a probability of accomplishment on the merits and satisfactorily serious questions as to the merits and the equilibrium of adversities that stumble distinctly in their favor.

Secondly, the court had to determine that the plaintiff portrayed actual harm. The court held that the plaintiffs did not show that they are probable to triumph on the merits on this claim in their copyright violation claim. Additionally, the court stated that the plaintiffs did not show serious questions as to the merits and the equilibrium of adversities that stumble distinctly in their favor. In comparison, although Primetime 24 and WNET, Thirteen, et al did not have similar grounds to present their appeals, they both failed due to different technicalities.

It can be seen that Primetime 24 motion to dismiss failed because they transmitted NFL’s telecasts beyond the boundaries of United States without their acknowledgement. In WNET, Thirteen, et al, they did not satisfy any of the four factors relevant to issuance of a preliminary injunction. Works Cited Van Graafeiland, Straub and Pooler, National Football League vs. Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 211 F. 3d 10 < http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10778187452982763255&q=National+Football+League+v.

+Primetime+24,+211+F.3d+10&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1>. 2013. Web.