11-788-cv

WPIX v. ivi UN I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F A P PEAL S FOR T HE S E C ON D C I RC U I T Augus t Term 201 1 (Argu ed: M ay 30 , 201 2 Deci ded: Augus t 27, 2012 )

Docke t No. 11-7 88-cv



### W P I X , I N C 

### . , WN E T . O R G , AME R I C AN 

### B R O A D C A S T I N G 

### C OM P AN I E S 

### , I N C 

### . , D I S N E Y 

### E N T E R P R I S E S 

### , I N C 

### . , C B S B RO A D C A S T I N G 

### I N C 

### . , C B S S T U D I O S 

### , I N C 

### . , T H E 

### C W T E L E V I S I O N 

### S T A T I O N S 

### , I N C 

### . , N B C UN I VE R S A L 

### , I N C 

### . , N B C S T U D I O S 

### , I N C 

### . , U N I VE R S A L 

### N E T W O RK 

### T E L E V I S I O N 

### , L L C , T E L E MU N D O 

### N E T W O RK 

### G R O U P 

### , L L C , N B C T E L E MU N D O 

### L I C E N S E 

### C OM P AN Y 

### , O F F I C E O F T H E 

### C O MM I S S I O N E R O F 

### B A S E B A L L 

### , ML B A DVAN C E D 

### ME D I A 

### , L . P . , C O X 

### ME D I A 

### G RO U P 

### , I N C 

### . , F I S H E R 

### B R O A D C A S T I N G 

### - S E A T T L E 

### T V , L . L . C . , T W E N T I E T H 

### C E N T U RY 

### F O X 

### F I L M 

### C O R P O RA T I O N 

### , F O X 

### T E L E V I S I O N 

### S T A T I O N S 

### , I N C 

### . , T R I B U N E 

### T E L E V I S I O N 

### H O L D I N G S 

### , I N C 

### . , T R I B U N E 

### T E L E V I S I O N 

### N O R T H W E S T 

### , I N C 

### . , U N I V I S I O N 

### T E L E V I S I O N 

### G R O U P 

### , I N C 

### . , T H E 

### U N I V I S I O N 

### N E T W O RK 

### L I M I T E D 

### P AR T N E R S H I P 

### , T E L E F U T U RA 

### N E T W O RK 

### , W G B H E D U C A T I O NA L 

### F O U N DA T I O N 

### , T H I R T E E N , AN D 

### P U B L I C 

### B R O A D C A S T I N G 

### S E RV I C E 

### , Plain tiffs -Appe llees , v. I V I 

### , I N C 

### . , AN D 

### T O D D 

### W E AVE R 

### ,

Defen dants -Appe llant s . Befor e: W I N T E R , C H I N , and D R O N E Y , Circu it Ju dges .Appea l fro m a j udgme nt ofthe Unite d Sta tes

Distr ict C ourt for t he So uther n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (Buch wald, J. ) gra ntingplai ntiff s-app ellee s' mo tion for a preli minar y inj uncti on an d hol ding that defen dant- appel lant ivi, Inc. -- a compa ny th at st reams tele visio n pro gramm ing live and o ver t he In terne t -– is no t a " cable syst em" u nder § 111 of t he Co pyrig ht Ac t of 1976, 17 U .S.C. § 11 1.

AFFIRMED.

RO B E R T AL AN GARRE T T (Pete r L. Zimro th,

Hadri an R. Katz , Lis a S. Blatt , C. Scott Morr ow, R . Ree ves Anders on, on the b rief ), Ar nold & Por ter L LP, N ew York, New York, and Washi ngton , D.C., for Plaint iffs-Appel lees . L AW RE N C E D. G RA H AM (Elle n M. Bierm an, on th e brief ), Bl ack L owe & Grah am PL LC, Seatt le, W ashin gton, for D efendantsAppel lants .

C H I N , Circu it Ju dge :

In th is ca se, p laint iffs- appel lees -- pr oduce rs and o wners of c opyri ghtedtele visio n pro gramm ing - - sue d defen dants -appe llant s ivi , Inc . ("i vi") and i ts Ch ief

-2-Execu tive Offic er, T odd W eaver , forstre amingplai ntiff s'

copyr ighte d tel evisi on pr ogramming over the I ntern et li ve and w ithou t the ir co nsent . Th e dis trict cour t gra nted a preli minar y inj uncti on fo r pla intif fs, h oldin g tha t: (1) p laint iffs were likel y to succe ed onthe merit s of the

case becau se iv i was not a "ca ble s ystem " ent itledto a compu lsorylice nse u nder § 111 of t he Co pyrig ht Ac t, 17 U.S.C . § 1 11; ( 2) pl ainti ffs w ould suffe r irr epara ble h arm witho ut in junct ive r elief ; (3) the balan ce ofhard ships favor ed th e gra nt ofa pr elimi nary injun ction ; and(4) the issua nce o f a p relim inaryinju nctio n didnot disse rve t he publi c int erest . De fenda nts a ppeal . Fo r the reas ons t hat follo w, we affi rm. STATE MENT OF TH

E CAS E 1. The F

acts The f ollow ing f acts are u ndisp uted. On Se ptemb er 13 , 201 0, iv i beg an st reami ng plain tiffs ' cop yrigh ted p rogrammingoverthe Inter net, live,

-3-for p rofit , andwith out p laint iffs' cons ent. ivi b egan by 1 retra nsmit ting signa ls fr om ap proxi matel y thi rty N ew Yo rk and S eattl e bro adcas t tel evisi on st ation s; byFebr uary 2, 2011, ivi was a lso r etran smitt ing s ignal s fro m sta tions in Chica go an d Los Ange les. Wit hin f ive m onths of i ts la unch, 2 ivi h ad of feredmore than4,00 0 of plain tiffs ' cop yrigh ted telev isionprog rams to it s sub scrib ers.

"Streaming" generally involves compressing a file to a 1 size small enough to be transmitted over the Internet and then allowing the receiving computer to start playing packets of the file while the remaining packets are being transmitted. Preston Gralla, How The Internet Works 229-31 (7th ed. 2004). ivi's technology further "encrypts" the transmitted content -- that is, ivi encodes the content so that it cannot be viewed as it is transmitted over the Internet; ivi then "decrypts" or decodes the content back into a viewable format in small increments or packets shortly before it appears on a given subscriber's screen. See id. at 98-99.

ivi can also transmit data "peer-to-peer." "Peer-topeer" configurations allow people to share files between computers over the Internet. Id. at 225. ivi's subscriber license agreement includes a section permitting ivi to use subscriber computers and bandwidth to enable peer-to-peerviewing. According to Weaver, however, ivi has not used a peerto-peer configuration as of October, 2010.

"Broadcast" television programming generally refers to 2 programs "originally propagated by traditional over-the-air television signals for receipt by antenna." Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc. , 836 F.2d 599, 601 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (" MPAA "). "Cable" television programming or "non-broadcast" programming refers to programs "produced solely for cable systems and disseminated only through them." Id. -4-Speci fical ly, i vi ca pture d andretr ansmi tted

plain tiffs ' cop yrigh ted t elevi sion progr ammin g liv e andover the I ntern et to payi ng iv i sub scrib ers who ha d dow nload ed ivi's "TV playe r" onthei r computer s fora mo nthly subsc ripti on fe e of $4.99 (fol lowin g a 3 0-dayfree tria l). For a n add ition al fe e of $0.99 per month , sub scrib ers w ere able to re cord, paus e, fa st-fo rward , andrewi nd iv i's streams. Almos t imm ediat ely a fter ivi's laun ch, s evera l affec ted p rogram own ers a nd br oadca st st ation s sen t cea seand-d esist lett ers t o ivi . iv i res ponde d to these lett ers

on orabou t Sep tembe r 17, 2010 , pur porti ng to just ify i ts opera tions on t he gr ound that it wa s a c able syste m ent itled to a compu lsorylice nse u nder § 111 of t he Co pyrig ht Ac t, 17 U.S.C . § 1 11. 2. Proce edings Bel ow

On Se ptemb er 20 , 201 0, iv i fil ed a decla rator y actio n in the U nitedStat es Di stric t Cou rt fo r the West ern Distr ict o f Was hingt on. On Se ptemb er 28 , 201 0, pl ainti ffs sued defen dants for copyr ight infri ngeme nt inthe South ern

-5-Distr ict o f NewYork , see king damag es an d inj uncti ve re lief.

On Ja nuary19, 2011, the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or the W ester n Dis trict of W ashin gton (Roba rt, J .) di smiss ed ivi's decl arato ry ac tion as animpe rmiss ible antic ipato ry filin g. See i vi, Inc. v . Fis her Commc' ns, Inc., No. C10- 1512J LR, 2 011 W L 197 419 ( W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2011) .

On Fe bruar y 22, 2011 , in a tho roughand caref ullyconsi dereddeci sion, the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Buchw ald, J .) gr anted plain tiffs ' mot ion f or a preli minar y inj uncti on. See WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, In c. , 765 F. S upp. 2d 59 4, 62 2 (S. D.N.Y . 201 1). This appea l fol lowed . 3 DISCU SSION We re view a dis trict cour t's g rant of a preli minar y inj uncti on fo r abu se ofdisc retio n. Kickh am Hanley P.C . v. KodakRet. Income Pl an , 558 F.3d204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009) . A distr ict c ourt abuse s its disc retio n in

On April 18, 2011, the district court denied ivi's 3 motion for a stay pending appeal. On July 28, 2011, this Court denied ivi's motion for a stay on the ground that ivi had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. -6-grant ing aprel imina ry in junct ion when i ts de cisio n res ts on

an er ror o f lawor aclea rly e rrone ous f actua l fin ding, or when its d ecisi on ca nnot be lo catedwith in th e ran ge of permi ssibl e dec ision s. Id . Ina co pyrig ht ca se, adist rict court may grant a pr elimi nary injun ctionwhenplai ntiff s demon strat e: ( 1) a likel ihoodof s ucces s on the merits ; (2) i rrepa rable harmin t he ab sence of a n inj uncti on; ( 3) a balan ce ofthe hards hips tippi ng inthei r fav or; a nd (4) n on-di sserv ice o f the publ ic in teres t by issua nce o f a preli minar y inj uncti on. Salin ger v . Col ting , 607 F.3d68, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2010) . We disc uss e ach p rong of Salin ger in turn. I. Likel ihood

of Succes s on the M erits Underthe Copyr ight Act, telev isionbroa dcast ers "gene rally[hav e] 'e xclus ive r ights ' . . . to auth orize the publi c dis play of [t heir] copy right ed co ntent , inc ludin g the retra nsmis sion of [t heir] broa dcast sign al[s] ." EchoS tar Satel lite L.L.C . v. F.C.C . , 457 F.3d31, 33 (D .C. C ir. 2006) ; see17 U .S.C. § 10 6(4)- (5). Cong ress, howe ver, codif ied a n exc eptio n to this exclu sive right in 1 976 -

-

-7-§ 111 of t he Co pyrig ht Ac t -- permi ttingcabl e sys tems to

publi cly p erform andretr ansmi t sig nals of co pyrig hted telev isionprog rammi ng to its subsc riber s, pr ovide d the y pay royal ties at go vernm ent-r egula ted r ates and a bide by th e statu te's proce dures . See17 U .S.C. § 11 1(c) (exce ption ), (d) ( royal ties) ; U.S . Cop yrigh t Off ice, Satel lite Home Viewe r Ext ensio n and Reau thori zatio n ActSect ion 1 09 Report 1 (20 08) ( "SHVE RA Re port" ).

In th is ca se, i t is undis putedthat plai ntiff s ownedvali d cop yrigh ts to the telev isionprog rammi ng th at ivi p ublic ly pe rform ed wi thout plai ntiff s' co nsent . See ivi , 765 F. S upp. 2d at 601. The burd en ofproo f thu s fal ls on de fenda nts t o dem onstr ate t hat t hey h ave a n aff irmat ive statu tory defen se to copy right infr ingement. See B ournev. Walt Disney Co. , 68 F.3d 621, 631 ( 2d Ci r. 19 95) ( notin g posse ssionof l icens e by accus ed in fring er is affi rmati ve defen se an d bur den f alls on li cense e to prove lice nse's exist ence (citi ng Unite d Sta tes v . Larracue nte , 952 F.2d 672, 674 ( 2d Ci r. 19 92); Melvi lle B . Nimmer & Davi d Nimmer, Nimme r on Copyr ight§ 13 .01)) . In deed, defe ndant s arg ue -8-that ivi i s a c able syste m ent itledto a§ 11 1 lic ense under

the C opyri ght A ct.

Thus, the princ ipal issue pres entedis whethe r ivi, a ser vice that streams co pyrig hted telev ision progr ammin g liv e andoverthe Inter net, const itute s a c able syste m und er § 111 o f the Copy right Act. If so, i vi ha s a statu tory defen se to plai ntiff s' cl aims of co pyrig ht infri ngeme nt, a nd iv i is entit led t o a c ompul sory licen se to conti nue r etran smitt ing p laint iffs' prog rammi ng. See Satel lite Broad . and Comm c'ns Ass'nof Am. v. Oman , 17 F.3d 344, 345-4 6 (11 th Cir. 1994) . If n ot, i vi ha s no defen se to plain tiffs ' cla ims o f inf ringe ment. See i d. at 3 46.

As di scuss ed be low, the C opyri ght O ffice -- t he feder al ag ency charg ed wi th ov ersee ing §111 -- ha s spo ken on th e iss ue ofwhet her §111' s compulso ry li cense s ext end to In terne t ret ransm issio ns. Accor dingl y, we util ize t he two-s tep p roces s out linedin Chevr on U. S.A., Inc. v. Natura l Res. Def. Counc il, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984 ). A t Chevr on step one, we co nside r whe ther Congr ess h as cl earlyspok en on the i ssue of In terne t ret ransm issio ns in§ 11 1. See i d. at

-9-842-4 3; Cohenv. JP Mor gan Chase & Co., 498 F .3d 1 11, 1 16

(2d C ir. 2 007). If the i ntent of C ongre ss is clea r, th at is the e nd ofthe matte r; co urts "must give effe ct to the unamb iguou sly e xpres sed i ntent of C ongre ss." Chevr on , 467 U.S. at 84 2-43. If we de termi ne th at Co ngres s has not direc tly a ddres sed t he pr ecise ques tion at is sue, we pr oceed to Chevr onsteptwo, "whi ch in struc ts us to d efer to an agenc y's i nterp retat ion o f the stat ute, so lo ng as it i s 'reas onabl e.'" Cohen , 498 F.3dat 1 16 (quotin gChevron , 467 U.S. at 84 3-44) . A. Chevron St ep On e To as certa in Co ngres s's i ntent at Chevr on step one, we be gin w ith t he st atuto ry te xt; i f its lang uage is unamb iguou s, no furt her i nquir y is neces sary. Cohen , 498 F.3d at 11 6 (ci ting Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. v. D ep't of Ed uc. , 550 U .S. 8 1, 93 -94 ( 2007) ; Robin son v . She ll Oi l Co. , 519 U.S. 337, 340 ( 1997) ; Danie l v. Am. B d. of Emer gency

Med. , 428 F .3d 4 08, 4 23 (2 d Cir . 200 5)). If th e sta tutor y langu age i s amb iguou s, we lookto t he ca nons of st atuto ry const ructi on, a nd th en to the legis lativ e his tory to se e -10-wheth er an y "'i nterp retiv e clu es' p ermit us t o ide ntify

Congr ess's clea r int ent." Cohen , 498 F.3dat 1 16 (c iting Gen. Dynam ics L and Sys., Inc. v. Cl ine , 540 U.S. 581, 586 (2004 ); acco rd Da niel , 428 F.3dat 4 23).

1. The S tatut ory T ext Secti on 11 1(c)( 1) ofthe Copyr ight Act p rovid es: [S]ec ondar y tra nsmis sions to t he pu blic by a cable syst em ofa pe rform ance or displ ay ofa wo rk embodie d in a pri mary trans missi on ma de bya br oadca st st ation licen sed b y the Fede ral C ommun icati ons Commi ssion. . . sha ll be subj ect t o statu tory licen sing upon compl iance with the r equir ement s of subse ction(d) where the c arria ge ofthe signa ls co mpris ing the s econd ary t ransm issio n is permi ssibl e underthe rules , reg ulati ons, or autho rizat ions of th e Fed eral Commu nicat ions Commi ssion . 17 U. S.C. § 111 (c)(1 ). A " cable syst em" i s def ined as: 4 a fac ility , loc ated in an y Sta te, terri tory, trus t ter ritor y, orposs essio n of th e Uni ted S tates , tha t in whole or i n part recei ves s ignal s tra nsmit ted o r progr ams b roadc ast b y one or m ore telev isionbroa dcast stat ions licen sed b y the F edera l Communic ation s Commissi on, A "secondary transmission" is defined as "the further 4 transmitting of a primary transmission simultaneously with the primary transmission." 17 U.S.C. § 111(f)(2). -11-and m akes secon dary trans missi ons o f suc h signa ls orprog rams by wi res, cable s, micro wave, or o ther commu nicat ions chann els t o sub scrib ing member s of the publi c who pay for s uch s ervic e. F or purpo ses o f det ermin ing t he ro yaltyfee undersubs ectio n (d) (1), two o r mor e cable syst ems i n con tiguo us co mmuni ties undercomm on ow nersh ip orcont rol o r opera ting from one h eaden d sha ll be consi deredas o ne sy stem. 17 U. S.C. § 111 (f)(3 ). 5

Basedon t he st atuto ry te xt al one, it is simp ly not c lear wheth er a servi ce th at re trans mits telev ision progr ammin g liv e andoverthe Inter net c onsti tutes a ca ble syste m und er § 111. That is, it is uncl ear whethe r suc h a servi ce (1 ) is or ut ilize s a " facil ity" (2) t hat r eceiv es and r etran smits sign als ( 3) th roughwire s, ca bles, micro wave, or o ther commu nicat ion c hanne ls. See17 U .S.C. § 111 (f). 6

"A cable system's 'headend' is its control center, from 5 which a cable company receives signals and then transmits them, by coaxial cable, to the company's subscribers." Oman , 17 F.3d at 347 n.5 (citing, inter alia , E. Microwave, Inc. v. Doubleday Sports, Inc. , 691 F.2d 125, 128 (2d Cir. 1982)).

ivi argues that it "plainly has a 'facility' as 6 required" by § 111. Reply Br. of Defs.-Appellants at 2. ivi explains that the Internet is not "the only equipment at issue here." Id. at 3. Rather, "the primary transmissions are -12-Amongothe r thi ngs, it is cert ainlyuncl ear

wheth er th e Int ernet itse lf is a fa cilit y, as it i s nei ther a phy sical nor a tan gible enti ty; r ather , it is "aglob al netwo rk ofmill ions of in terco nnect ed co mpute rs." 1-80 0 Conta cts, Inc. v. Wh enU.Com, Inc. , 414 F.3d400, 403 (2d Cir. 2005) (int ernal quot ationmark s omi tted) ; see a lso Akama i Techs., Inc. v. Ca ble &Wire less Internet S ervs. , Inc. , 344 F.3d1186 , 118 8-89 (Fed. Cir. 2003 ); ACLU v. Re no , 929 F .Supp . 824 , 830 , 832 (E.D . Pa. 1996 ) ("[ The I ntern et] exist s andfunc tions [bec ause] hund reds of th ousan ds of separ ate o perat ors o f computer s andcomp uter netwo rks indep enden tly d ecide d to use c ommondatatran sfer proto cols to ex chang e communic ation s andinfo rmati on wi th ot her compu ters. . . . The re is no c entra lizedstor age l ocati on, contr ol po int, or co mmuni catio ns ch annel for the I ntern et

. . . ."), aff'd , Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997 ). When conte nt is view ed ov er th e Int ernet , the view ing c omput er

received by physical encoder hardware, located in a state, then retransmitted from a headend also located in a state." Id. ivi, however, has not identified the location or nature of its facility. -13-typic ally recei ves i nform ationfromseve ral d iffer ent

serve rs. See Akamai , 344 F.3dat 1 189. Addi tiona lly, the growt h of "clou d-bas ed sy stems ," orvirt ual p latfo rms where conte nt re sides remo tely on a dista nt se rver, furt her highl ights the uncer taint y as to wh etheran I ntern et retra nsmis sion servi ce is or u tiliz es a facil ity t hat recei ves a nd re trans mits telev isionsign als. See E lec. Priva cy In fo. C tr. v . Nat 'l Se c. Agency , 678 F.3d926, 929 n.1 ( D.C. Cir. 2012) .

As Co ngres s's i ntent is n ot ap paren t fro m the statu tory text, we t urn t o § 1 11's legis lativ e his tory to see i f any"int erpre tive clues perm it us to i denti fy Congr ess's clea r int ent" as to whet her i vi co nstit utes a cable syst em un der §111. See Cohen , 498 F.3dat 1 16 (inte rnal quota tions mark s omm itted ).

2. Legis lativ

e His tory Cable syst ems w ere b uilt in th e lat e 194 0s to bringtele visio n pro gramm ing t o rem ote o r mou ntain ous

commu nitie s andhous ehold s tha t cou ld no t rec eive over- theair b roadc ast t elevi sion signa ls be cause of t heir geogr aphic

-14-locat ion. Turne r Bro ad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC , 512 U.S. 622,

627 ( 1994) (citi ng Unite d Sta tes v . Sw. Cabl e Co. , 392 U.S. 157, 161-6 4 (19 68); D. Br enner , M. Price & M. Meye rson, CableTele visio n and Othe r Non broad cast Video § 1.0 2 (19 92); M. Hamburg , All About Cable , Ch. 1 (1 979)) ; see SHVERA Repor t, supra , at 2.

In 19 68 an d 197 4, be fore Congr ess p assedthe Copyr ight Act o f 197 6, th e Sup reme Court heldthat retra nsmis sions of b roadc ast p rogrammingby c able syste ms did n ot co nstit ute c opyri ght i nfrin gemen t und er th e Copyr ight Act o f 190 9 bec ause such retra nsmis sions were not perfo rmanc es. See Telepr ompte r Cor p. v. Columbia Broad . Sys., Inc. , 415 U.S. 394 (1974 ), super ceded by 17 U. S.C. § 111 , as re cogni zed i n Cap ital Citie s Cab le, Inc. v . Cri sp , 467 U .S. 6 91, 7 09-10 (198 4); Fortn ightl y Cor p. v. Unit ed Artis ts Te levis ion , 392 U.S. 390 (1968 ) (same). As a resul t, ca ble s ystem s wer e abl e to retra nsmit broa dcast telev isionprog rammi ng wi thout obta ininglice nses or incur ring any f ees. The Telep rompt er Cour t, ho wever , concl uded that "if t he Co pyrig ht Ac t of 1909 was i nadequate

-15-to go vern the c ommer cial relat ionsh ips t hat h ad emergedin

the i nteri m, it was for C ongre ss to crea te a subst itute ." MPAA , 836 F.2dat 6 02 (c itingTelepromp ter , 415 U.S. at 414). In 19 76, C ongre ss re spond ed to the Supre me Co urt's decis ions by en actin g § 1 11. Balan cing two s ociet al benef its, Congr ess e nacte d § 1 11 to enab le ca ble s ystem s to conti nue p rovid ing g reate r geo graph ical acces s to telev ision progr ammin g whi le of ferin g some pro tecti on to broa dcast ers to in centi vize the c ontin ued c reati on ofbroa dcast telev isionprog rammi ng. SHVERA Rep ort, supra , at 4; see Crisp , 467 U.S. at 7 10-11 ("Co mpuls ory l icens ing n ot on ly prote cts t he co mmerc ial v alue of co pyrig hted works but also enhan ces t he ab ilityof c able syste ms to retr ansmi t suc h progr ams . . . there by al lowin g the publ ic to bene fit b y the widerdiss emina tion of wo rks c arrie d on telev isionbroa dcast signa ls.") ; E. Mi crowa ve , 691 F.2dat 1 32; MPAA , 836 F.2dat 602. Sect ion 1 11's compu lsorylice nse t hus e nable d cab le syste ms to bypa ss th e tra nsact ion c osts and i mprac tical ities of ne gotia ting indiv idual lice nses with dozen s of copyr ight

-16-owner s, wh ile s imult aneou sly e nsuri ng th at co pyrig ht ow ners

were compe nsate d. See Crisp , 467 U.S. at 7 11 & n.15; SHVE RA Repor t, supra , at 3-4 .

In 19 91, t he El event h Cir cuit held that a satel lite carri er wa s a c able syste m cov ered by § 111's compu lsorylice nsingsche me. See Nat'l Broa d. Co ., In c., v . Satel lite Broad . Net works , Inc . , 940 F.2d1467 , 147 1 (11 th Cir. 1991) , super ceded by 17 U. S.C. § 119 , as re cogni zed i n Oman , 17 F.3d 344; see a lso E choSt ar , 457 F.3dat 3 3-34 . In 1998, rath er th an in corpo rate satel lite techn ologyas a

commu nicat ions chann el un der §111, Cong ress respo nded to the E leven th Ci rcuit 's de cisio n by codif ying a sep arate statu tory licen se fo r sat ellit e car riers unde r § 1 19 ofthe Copyr ight Act. S ee17 U .S.C. § 11 9 (th e Sat ellit e Home Viewe r Act of 1 988 ( "SHVA ")). In 1 999, Congr ess n oted that in "c reati ng co mpuls ory l icens es, i t is actin g in derog ation of th e exc lusiv e pro pertyrigh ts gr antedby t he Co pyrig ht Act t o cop yrigh t hol ders, and that it th erefo re ne eds t o act

as na rrowl y as possi ble t o min imize the effec ts ofthe gover nment 's in trusi on onthe broad er ma rket in wh ich t he

-17-affec ted p roper ty ri ghts and i ndust ries opera te." S. Rep.

No. 1 06-42 , at 10 (1 999); cf. Tasini v. N .Y. Times Co. , 206 F.3d 161, 168 ( 2d Ci r. 20 00) ( Where the Copyr ight Act " sets forthexce ption s to a gen eral rule, we g enera lly c onstr ue the e xcept ions 'narr owly in or der t o pre serve the prima ry opera tion of th e pro visio n.'" (alte ratio ns om itted ) (qu oting Commi ssion er v. Clark , 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989 ))).

Final ly, i n 199 4, Co ngres s exp ressl y inc luded "micr owave " as an ac cepta ble c ommun icati ons c hanne l for retra nsmis sions . See17 U .S.C. § 11 1(f)( 3). Congr ess h as not c odifi ed a statu tory provi sion for I ntern et retra nsmis sions , norhas it in clude d the "Int ernet " as an accep table communica tion chann el un der §111. 7

Toward the end of Congress's last session in 2000, an 7 amendment was proposed to clarify that § 111 does not apply to broadcast retransmissions over the Internet. Copyrighted Broadcast Programming on the Internet: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Prop. of the House Comm. on the Judiciary , 106th Cong. (2000) (statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights). For indiscernible reasons, the amendment was ultimately removed from the legislation. See id. -18-3. Legis lativ e Int ent The l egisl ative hist ory i ndica tes t hat C ongre ss enact ed § 111 w ith t he in tent to ad dress the issue of p oor telev isionrece ption , or, more spec ifica lly, to mi tigat e the diffi culti es th at ce rtaincommuniti es an d hou sehol ds fa ced in re ceivi ng ov er-th e-airbroa dcast sign als b y ena blingthe expan sion of ca ble s ystem s. See T urner , 512 U.S. at 6 27; Crisp , 467 U.S. at 7 10-11 ; E. Mi crowa ve , 691 F.2dat 1 32; MPAA , 836 F.2dat 6 02; S HVERARepo rt, supra , at 1, 3.

Throu gh § 111's comp ulsor y lic ense scheme, Congr ess i ntend ed to supp ort l ocali zed - - rat her t han natio nwide -- s ystem s tha t use cabl e or optic al fi bers to trans mit s ignal s thr ough "a ph ysica l, po int-t o-poi nt

conne ctionbetw een atran smiss ion f acili ty an d the telev isionsets of i ndivi dual subsc riber s." Turne r , 512 U.S. at 62 7-28 (citi ng Cmty. Comm c'ns Co. v . Bou lder , 600 F.2d 1370, 1377 -78 ( 10th Cir. 1981) ). 8

The statute's reference to "contiguous communities," 8 and a "headend" in defining a cable system also indicates that Congress intended to direct § 111's license at localized -- rather than national -- retransmission services. See17 U.S.C. § 111(f). -19-Congr ess d id no t, ho wever , int end f or § 111's

compu lsorylice nse t o ext end t o Int ernet tran smiss ions. Indee d, th e leg islat ive h istor y ind icate s tha t if Congr ess had i ntend ed to exte nd § 111's comp ulsor y lic ense to Inter net r etran smiss ions, it w ould have done so express ly -- eithe r thr ough the l angua ge of§ 11 1 as it di d formicr owave retra nsmis sions or b y cod ifyin g a s epara te st atuto ry provi sion as it did for s atell ite c arrie rs. See17 U .S.C. §§ 11 1, 11 9.

Exten ding § 111 's co mpuls ory l icens e to Inter net retra nsmis sions , mor eover , wou ld no t ful fill or fu rther Congr ess's stat utorypurp ose. Inte rnet retra nsmis sion servi ces a re no t see king to ad dress issu es ofrece ptionand remot e acc ess t o ove r-the -air telev isionsign als. They provi de no t a l ocal but anati onwid e (ar guabl y inter natio nal) servi ce.

Accor dingl y, we conc lude that Congr ess d id no t inten d for§ 11 1's c ompul sory licen se to exte nd to Inte rnet retra nsmis sions . To the exten t tha t the re is any doubt as to Co ngres s's i ntent , how ever, we p rocee d to Chevr on step

-20-two, and w e con clude that the posit ion o f the Copy right

Offic e eli minat es su ch do ubt i n its enti rety. B. Chevron St ep Two The C opyri ght O ffice is t he adminis trati ve ag ency charg ed wi th ov ersee ing §111' s compulso ry li censi ng sc heme. See 17 U. S.C. § 111 (d); Oman , 17 F.3d at 34 7; MPAA , 836 F.2d at 60 8. A lthou gh Co ngres s has not expre ssly deleg ated autho rity to th e Cop yrigh t Off ice t o mak e rul es ca rryin g the force of l aw, " agenc ies c harge d wit h app lyinga st atute

. . . cert ainlymay influ ence court s fac ing questi ons t he agenc ies h ave a lread y ans wered ." Unite d Sta tes v . Mea d Corp. , 533 U.S. 218, 227 (2001 ). T o det ermin e the appro priat e amo unt o f def erenc e to an ag ency admin ister ing a statu te, " court s hav e loo ked t o the degr ee ofthe agenc y's care, its consi stenc y, fo rmali ty, a nd re lativ e exp ertne ss, and t o the pers uasiv eness of t he ag ency' s pos ition ." Id. at 228 ( citin g Skidm ore v . Swi ft & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 139- 140 (1944 )). The w eight acco rded to th e Cop yrigh t Off ice's inter preta tions "'de pend[ s] up on th e tho rough ness evide nt in its c onsid erati on, t he va lidit y of its r eason ing, its

-21-consi stenc y wit h ear lier and l ater prono uncements, and all

those fact ors w hich give it po wer t o per suade .'" Id. at 2 28 (quot ing Skidm ore , 323 U.S. at 1 40); see a lso Morrisv. B us. Concepts, Inc. , 283 F.3d502, 505- 06 (2 d Cir . 200 2); Oman , 17 F. 3d at 345.

The C opyri ght O ffice has consi stent ly co nclud ed that Inter net r etran smiss ion s ervic es ar e not cabl e sys tems and d o not qual ify f or § 111 c ompul sory licen ses. In 1 997, the C opyri ght O ffice conc ludedthat Inte rnet retra nsmis sion servi ces, "so v astlydiff erent fromothe r ret ransm issio n indus tries now eligi ble f or co mpuls ory l icens ing[, ]" we re not e ntitl ed to a § 111 c ompul sory licen se. U.S. Copyr ight Offic e, A Review o f theCopyrightLice nsing Regi mes Coveri ng Retra nsmis sion of Br oadca st Si gnals97 ( 1997) . In2000 , the Regis ter o f Cop yrigh ts (t he "Regist er") asser ted t hat " the secti on 11 1 lic ense does not a nd sh ould not a pply to Inter net r etran smiss ions. " Copyr ight Broad cast Programmin g on th e Int ernet : Hea ring Befor e theSubc omm. on Co urts and Intel lectu al Pr operty of the Comm. on th e Judiciary , 106 th Cong. 25-2 6 (20 00) ( state ment of Ma rybet h Pet ers, The

-22-Regis ter o f Cop yrigh ts) ( quoti ng Lette r of Maryb eth Peters ,

Regis ter o f Copyrigh ts, t o theHono rableHowa rd Coble(Nov . 10, 1 999)) . Th e Reg isterfurt her c onclu ded t hat " if th ere

were to be a co mpuls ory l icens e cov eringsuch retra nsmis sions , it wouldhave to c ome f rom n ewly- enact ed legis latio n andnot exist ing l aw." Id.

In 20 08, t he Co pyrig ht Of fice state d: The O ffice cont inues to o ppose an Inter net s tatut ory l icens e tha t wou ld permi t anywebs ite o n the Inte rnet to retra nsmit tele visio n pro gramm ing w ithou t the c onsen t of the c opyri ght o wner. Suc h a mea sure, if e nacte d, wo uld e ffect ively wrest cont rol a way f rom p rogram pro ducer s who m ake s ignif icant inve stmen ts in conte nt an d who powe r the crea tive engin e in th e U.S . eco nomy. In addit ion, a gover nment -mand ated Inter net l icens e wouldlike ly un dercu t pri vate negot iatio ns le avingcont ent o wners with relat ivelylitt le ba rgain ing p ower in th e distr ibuti on ofbroa dcast prog rammi ng. SHVERA Rep ort a t 188 . It cont inuedto h old t his p ositi on in 2011. SeeU.S. Copy right Offi ce, Satel lite Television Exten sion and L ocali sm Ac t § 3 02 Report48 ( Aug. 29, 2 011); 2 Mel ville B. N immer& Da vid N immer , Nimme r on Copyr ight § 8.1 8[E][ 1] n. 129.2 5 (Ma tthewBend er re v. ed . 201 2) (1 963).

-23-More broad ly, t he Co pyrig ht Of fice has m ainta ined

that § 111 's co mpuls ory l icens e forcabl e sys tems is inten ded f or lo caliz ed re trans missi on se rvice s; un der t his inter preta tion, Inte rnet retra nsmis sion servi ces a re no t entit led t o a §111 licen se. See57 F ed. Reg. 3 284 ( Jan. 29, 1 992) (codi fied at 37 C.F. R. § 201.1 7); see a lso Oman , 17 F. 3d at 346. Wit h res pect to sa telli te ca rrier s, th e Copyr ight Offic e has stat ed: "Exam inati on ofthe overa ll opera tion of se ction111 prove s tha t the comp ulsor y lic ense appli es on ly to loca lizedretr ansmi ssionserv ices regul ated

as ca ble s ystem s by the F CC." 57 F ed. Reg. 3 284, 3292 (Jan. 29, 1 992); see a lso 62 Fe d. Re g. 18 7-05, 1870 7 (Ap r. 17 , 1997) ("[T ]he O ffice reta ins t he po sitio n tha t a p rovid er of broad cast signa ls be an i nhere ntly local ized trans missi on mediaof l imite d ava ilabi lity to qu alifyas acabl e sys tem." (citi ng 56 Fed. Reg. 3159 5 (Ju ly 11 , 199 1)).

To re ach t his c onclu sion, the Copyr ight Offic e has expla ined that § 111 (f) r efers to " heade nds" and " conti guous

commu nitie s," w hich are i nappl icabl e to natio nwide retra nsmis sion servi ce. 57 Fe d. Re g. 32 84, 3 290. The

-24-Copyr ight Offic e als o not ed th at § 111 d efine s a " 'dist ant

signa l equ ivale nt' w ith r efere nce t o tel evisi on st ation s 'with in wh ose l ocal servi ce ar ea th e cab le sy stem is locat ed.'" Id. Bec ause satel lite carri ers p rovid e 9 natio nwide retr ansmi ssionserv ice a nd be cause theyare not locat ed inthei r loc al se rvice area , the Copy right Offi ce concl uded that satel lite carri ers w ere n ot ca ble s ystem s under§ 11 1. Id. Und er th is in terpr etati on, I ntern et retra nsmis sion servi ces c annot cons titut e cab le sy stems under§ 11 1 bec ause they provi de na tionw ide - - andargu ably globa l -- servi ces.

Final ly, t he Co pyrig ht Of fice has c onsis tentl y recog nizedthat § 11 1's r efere nce t o "ot her c ommun icati ons chann els" shoul d not be r ead b roadl y to inclu de "f uture unkno wn se rvice s," s uch a s sat ellit e, mu ltipo int distr ibuti on (" MMDS" ), an d sat ellit e mas ter a ntenn a telev ision("SMATV") tran smiss ions. Id. at 3 293-9 6 & n .5.

A "'distant signal equivalent' is a figure used to 9 calculate the percentage of gross receipts owed by a cable system to the copyright holders of programs broadcast." Oman , 17 F.3d at 347 n.6 (citing sources). -25-In 19 92, i n res ponse to whethe r "fu ture unkno wn se rvice s"

couldqual ify f or co mpuls ory l icens es, t he Co pyrig ht Of fice concl uded that becau se "t he 19 76 Ac t didnot consi der t he publi c pol icy i mplic ation s of exten ding a compulso ry li cense to th ese n on-ca ble s ervic es, t he Co pyrig ht Of fice shoul d not

asser t the auth orityto i nterp ret t he Co pyrig ht ac t in this way. Id. at 3 293, n.5.

In li ght o f the Copy right Offi ce's exper tise, the valid ity o f its reas oning , the cons isten cy ofits earli er and l ater prono uncem ents, and the c onsis tencyof i ts opini ons w ith C ongre ss's purpo se inenac ting § 111 , we concl ude t hat t he Co pyrig ht Of fice' s pos itionis r eason able and p ersua sive. See Mead , 533 U.S. at 2 27-28 .

Accor dingl y, ap plyin g Chevr on , we hold that: (1) t he st atuto ry te xt is ambi guous as t o whe ther ivi, a servi ce th at re trans mits telev isionprog rammi ng ov er th e Inter net, is en title d to a compulso ry li cense unde r § 1 11; (2) t he st atute 's le gisla tive histo ry, d evelo pment , and purpo se in dicat e tha t Con gress did not i ntendfor § 111 licen ses t o ext end t o Int ernet retr ansmi ssion s; (3 ) the

-26-Copyr ight Offic e's i nterp retat ion o f § 1 11 -- that Inte rnet

retra nsmis sion servi ces d o not cons titut e cab le sy stems under§ 11 1 -- align s wit h Con gress 's in tent and i s

reaso nable ; and(4) accor dingl y, th e dis trict cour t didnot abuse its discr etionin f indin g tha t pla intif fs we re li kely to su cceedon t he me rits of th e cas e. II. Irreparabl e Inj ury

We ne xt tu rn to whet her t he di stric t cou rt ab used its d iscre tion in fi ndingthat plai ntiff s wou ld su ffer irrep arabl e harm in the a bsenc e of a pre limin ary i njunc tion -- th at is , harm to the p laint iff's lega l int erest s tha t couldnot be re medie d aft er a final adju dicat ion. See Kickh am , 558 F.3dat 2 09 (a buse of di scret ion); Salin ger , 607 F .3d a t 82 (irre parab le ha rm). Harmmay be ir repar able where the loss is di fficu lt to repl ace o r mea sure, or where plain tiffs shou ld no t be expec ted t o suf fer t he lo ss. Salin ger , 607 F.3dat 8 1. U nder Salin ger , cou rts m ay no longe r simply p resum e irr epara ble h arm; rathe r, pl ainti ffs must demon strat e tha t, onthe facts of t he ca se, t he fa ilure to is sue a n inj uncti on wo uld a ctual ly ca use i rrepa rable

-27-harm. Id. at 8 2 (ci ting eBay, Inc. v. MercEx change, L. L.C. ,

547 U .S. 3 88, 3 93 (2 006)) . Co urts must pay " parti cular atten tion to wh etherthe 'reme dies avail able at la w, su ch as monet ary d amage s, ar e ina dequa te to comp ensat e for[the ] injur y.'" Id. at 8 0 (qu oting eBay , 547 U.S. at 3 91).

We ho ld th at th e dis trict cour t didnot abuse its discr etionin f indin g tha t pla intif fs wo uld s uffer irrep arabl e harm wit hout a pre limin ary i njunc tion. Fir st, ivi's live retr ansmi ssion s of plain tiffs ' cop yrigh ted progr ammin g ove r the Inte rnet wouldsubs tanti ally dimin ish the v alue of th e pro gramm ing. Seco nd, p laint iffs' loss es wouldbe d iffic ult t o mea sure and m oneta ry damages woul d be insuf ficie nt to reme dy th e harms. Third , ivi woul d be unabl e to pay d amage s sho uld p laint iffs preva il.

First , ivi 's ac tions harmplai ntiff s' retra nsmis sion and a dvert isingreve nues by su bstan tiall y dimin ishin g the valu e of theircopy right ed pr ogramming. Retra nsmis sion conse nt is a su bstan tial and g rowin g rev enue

sourc e forthe telev isionprog rammi ng in dustr y. P laint iffs obtai n ret ransm issio n rev enue by li censi ng th e rig ht to

-28-retra nsmit thei r cop yrigh ted t elevi sion progr ammin g to

cable , sat ellit e, an d tel ecommunica tions prov iders . See ivi , 765 F. S upp. 2d at 618- 19. Plain tiffs broa dcast thei r copyr ighte d pro gramm ing t o var ious commu nitie s at diffe rent scheduled times , forexample, basedon t ime z one o r loc al netwo rk pr ovide r. F or th is re ason, nego tiate d Int ernet retra nsmis sions -- f or ex ample , on Hulu. com - - typ icall y delayInte rnet broad casts as n ot to disr upt p laint iffs' broad cast distr ibuti on mo dels, redu ce th e liv e bro adcas t audie nce, or di vert the l ive b roadc ast a udien ce to the Inter net. If iv i wer e all owed to co ntinu e ret ransm ittin g plain tiffs ' pro gramm ing l ive, natio nally(andargu ably, inter natio nally ), ov er th e Int ernet , andwith out p laint iffs'

conse nt, i vi co uld m ake p laint iffs' prog rammi ng av ailab le earli er incert ain t ime z ones than scheduled by th e progr ams' copyr ight holde rs orpayi ng re trans missi on ri ghts holde rs. ivi's retr ansmi ssion s of plain tiffs ' cop yrigh ted progr ammin g wit hout theircons ent t hus w ould deval ue th e progr ammin g by reduc ing i ts "l ive" value and underminin g -29-exist ing a nd pr ospec tive retra nsmis sion fees, nego tiati ons,

and a greem ents. ivi 's re trans missi ons w ould dilut e plain tiffs ' pro gramm ing a nd th eir c ontro l ove r the ir produ ct. The v alue of pl ainti ffs' progr ammin g wou ld al so be harme d by the i mpact on a dvert isingreve nue. Broa dcast telev isionstat ions and n etwor ks ea rn mo st ofthei r rev enues from adver tisin g. Plain tiffs argu e –- persu asive ly -- that adver tiser s paysubs tanti al fe es to targ et sp ecifi c audie nces; suchfees are oftendete rmine d by the n umberof viewe rs an d the ir de mogra phic profi les. ivi's retra nsmis sions of p laint iffs' copy right ed pr ogramming over the I ntern et in creas es th e number o f Int ernet view ers a nd reduc es, " fragm ents, " anddive rts t he number of "l ocal viewe rs." See Lisa Lapan , Netwo rk Te levis ion a nd th e Digit al Th reat , 16 UCLA Ent. L. Re v. 34 3, 35 4, 35 7, 38 5 (2009 ); see a lso Miche lle R . Hul l, Sport s Lea gues' New Socia l Media Po licie s: En forcement Under CopyrightLaw and StateLaw , 34 Colum . J.L . & A rts 4 57, 4 87-88 (201 1). As a resul t, iv i's r etran smiss ions weake n pla intif fs' n egoti ating

-30-posit ion w ith a dvert isers and reduc e the valu e of its l ocal

adver tisem ents. See e .g. , MPAA , 836 F.2dat 6 03 (" Local adver tiser s wil l not pay extrato r each viewe rs wh o can not

reaso nablybe e xpect ed to patr onize thei r bus iness es, s o the

reven ue ba se fr om wh ich t o compensa te th e own ers u nders tates the v alue of th e use of t he ma teria ls, a nd th e cop yrigh t holde rs wo uld . . . be un derco mpens ated. " (ci ting sourc es)).

Indee d, iv i's a ction s -- streaming copyr ighte d works with out p ermis sion -- wo uld d rasti callychan ge th e indus try, to pl ainti ffs' detri ment. See e .g. , Adam B. Vanwa gner, Seeki ng a Clear er Pi cture : Ass essin g the Appropriat e Reg ulato ry Framewo rk fo r Bro adban d Vid eo Distr ibuti on , 79 Fordh am L. Rev. 2909 , 291 2 (20 11); Lisa Lapan , supra , at 344-4 5, 35 0-58; Howa rd M. Frumes, S usan Clear y, an d Lor in Br ennan , Devel oping an Intern et an d Wirel ess L icens e Agr eemen t for Moti on Pi cture s and TelevisionProgrammi ng , 1 J . Int 'l Me dia & Ent. L. 2 83, 2 84- 85 (2 007). The abse nce o f a p relim inaryinju nctio n wou ld

encou rage curre nt an d pro spect ive r etran smiss ion r ights holde rs, a s wel l as otherInte rnet servi ces, to fo llow ivi's

-31-lead in re trans mitti ng pl ainti ffs' copyr ighte d pro gramm ing

witho ut th eir c onsen t. The s treng th ofplai ntiff s' negot iatin g pla tformand busin ess m odel woulddecl ine. The quant ity a nd qu alityof e ffort s put into crea ting telev ision progr ammin g, re trans missi on an d adv ertis ing r evenu es, distr ibuti on mo dels and s chedu les – - all woul d be adver sely affec ted. Thes e harms wo uld e xtendto o ther copyr ight holde rs oftele visio n pro gramm ing. Cont inuedlive retra nsmis sions of c opyri ghtedtele visio n pro gramm ing o ver the I ntern et wi thout cons ent w ould thus threa ten t o desta biliz e the enti re in dustr y.

Secon d, pl ainti ffs' losse s wou ld be diff icult to

measu re an d mon etarydama ges w ould be in suffi cient to r emedy the h arms. See e Bay , 547 U.S. at 3 91; Sali nger , 607 F.3dat 80; Tom D oherty Ass oc., Inc. v. Sa bin Entm't , Inc . , 60 F.3d 27, 3 8 (2dCir. 1995 ) (ho ldinginju nctiv e rel ief a pprop riate "to a void the u nfair ness of de nyingan i njunc tion to a plain tiff on th e gro und t hat m oney damag es ar e ava ilabl e, only to co nfron t the plai ntiffat atria l on the merits with the r ule t hat [ the quanti ficat ion o f] damages must be b ased

-32-on mo re th an sp ecula tion. "). In th is ca se, t here is no

assur ance that damag es co uld b e rea sonab ly ca lcula ted a t trial . In deed, evenivi "appr eciat es th at th e mag nitud e of the h arm . . . may b e dif ficul t or impos sible to quanti fy." Br. o f Def s.-Ap pella nts a t 36. Add ition ally, beca use t he harms affe ct th e ope ratio n andstab ilityof t he en tire indus try, monet ary d amage s cou ld no t ade quate ly re medy plain tiffs ' inj uries .

Third , as defen dants have ackn owled ged, ivi w ould be un able to pa y anysubs tanti al damages awar d sho uld plain tiffs prev ail. SeeBr. of De fs.-Appell ants at 38 ("[T] he in junct ion h as ef fecti vely shut down the m ajori ty of ivi's busi ness, fore closi ng an y mea ningf ul ab ilityto gener ate a ny re venue duri ng th e pen dencyof t he litig ation ."). The "unli kelih ood t hat d efend ant[s ] . . . would , in any e vent, be a ble t o sat isfy a sub stant ial d amage award " fur ther suppo rts afind ing o f irr epara ble h arm. OmegaImpo rting

Corp . v. Petri -KineCame ra Co . , 451 F.2d 1190, 1195 (2d Cir. 1971) .

-33-Accor dingl y, we conc lude that the d istri ct co urt

did n ot ab use i ts di scret ion i n fin ding that plain tiffs wouldsuff er ir repar able harm witho ut a preli minar y injun ction . III. Balan ce of

Hardships We ne xt tu rn to whet her t he di stric t cou rt ab used its d iscre tion in fi ndingthat the balan ce ofhard ships weigh ed infavo r of grant ing aprel imina ry in junct ion. See Kickh am , 558 F.3dat 2 09 (a buse of di scret ion); Salin ger , 607 F .3d a t 82 (bala nce o f har dship s).

We co nclud e tha t it did n ot, f or pl ainti ffs demon strat ed th at th e bal ance of ha rdshi ps we ighedheav ily in fa vor o f gra ntinga pr elimi nary injun ction . As disc ussed above , pla intif fs es tabli shed both a lik eliho od ofsucc ess on th e mer its a nd ir repar able harm -- th e abs ence of an injun ctionwoul d res ult i n the cont inuedinfr ingement o f theirprop erty inter ests in th e cop yrigh ted m ateri al. As for d efend ants, as t he di stric t cou rt no ted, "[i]t is axiom atic that an in fring er ofcopy right cann ot co mplai n about the loss of ab ilityto o ffer its i nfrin ging produ ct."

-34-ivi , 765 F. S upp. 2d at 621 (citi ng so urces ). i vi ca nnot be

"lega lly h armedby t he fa ct th at it cann ot co ntinu e streaming plain tiffs ' pro gramm ing, even if th is ul timat ely puts ivi o ut ofbusi ness. " Id. The bala nce o f har dship s, there fore, clea rly t ips i n pla intif fs' f avor. IV. Publi c Int erest

Final ly, w e ass ess whethe r the dist rict court abuse d its disc retio n in findi ng th at th e pub lic i ntere st wouldnot be di sserv ed bythe grant of aprel imina ry injun ction . See Kickh am , 558 F.3dat 2 09 (a buse of discr etion ); see also eBay , 547 U.S. at 3 91 (p ublic inter est); Salin ger , 607 F.3dat 8 2-83 (same ).

Copyr ight law i nhere ntly balan ces t he tw o compe ting publi c int erest s pre sente d in this case: the right s of users and the p ublicinte rest in th e bro ad

acces sibil ity o f cre ative work s, an d the righ ts ofcopy right

owner s andthe publi c int erest in r eward ing a nd incen tiviz ing c reati ve ef forts (the "own er-us er ba lance "). S ee Cr isp , 467 U.S. at 7 10.

-35-Here, stre amingtele visio n pro gramm ing l ive a nd

over the I ntern et wo uld a llow the p ublic-- o r some por tions of th e pub lic - - to more conve nient ly ac cess telev ision progr ammin g. See Lisa Lapan , supra , at 361 ( discu ssing choic e andconv enien ce in"TV/ Inter net" conve rgenc e); see Tim Wu, Intel lectu al Pr operty, In novat ion, and D ecent raliz ed Decis ions , 92 Va. L . Rev . 123 , 139 (200 6) (d iscus sing balan cing of in teres ts an d not ing h istor ic pr oblemwher e "hold ers o f cop yrigh t blo ck orslowthe disse minat ion o f techn ologi es ofpote ntial ly br oad s ocial valu e tha t thr eaten

an ex istin g mar ket p ositi on").

On th e oth er ha nd, t he pu blic has acomp ellin g inter est i n pro tecti ng co pyrig ht ow ners' mark etabl e rig hts to th eir w ork a nd th e eco nomicince ntive to c ontin ue creat ing t elevi sion progr ammin g. See G olan v. Ho lder , 132 S. Ct . 873 , 890 (201 2) (c iting Eldre d v. Ashcr oft , 537 U.S. 186, 219 ( 2003) ; Harpe r & R ow Publish ers, Inc. v. Na tion Enter s. , 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985 )). Inade quate prot ectio ns for c opyri ght o wners can threa ten t he ve ry st ore o f knowl edge to be acce ssed; enco uragi ng th e pro ducti on of

-36-creat ive w ork t hus u ltima tely serve s the publ ic's inter est

in pr omoti ng th e acc essib ilityof s uch w orks. See MetroGoldw yn-Mayer S tudio s Inc . v. Groks ter, Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913, 961 ( 2005) (quo ting Twent ieth Centu ry Mu sic Corp. v. Ai ken , 422 U .S. 1 51, 1 56 (1 975)) .

Plain tiffs are copyr ight owner s of some of th e world 's mo st re cogni zed a nd va luabl e tel evisi on pr ogramming. Plain tiffs ' tel evisi on pr ogramming provi des avalu able servi ce to the publi c, in cludi ng, inter alia , edu catio nal, histo ric, and c ultur al pr ogramming, ente rtainment, an impor tant sourc e of local news crit ical for a n inf ormed elect orate , andexpo sure to th e art s. See Turne r , 512 U.S. at 64 8. P laint iffs' desi re to crea te or igina l tel evisi on progr ammin g sur ely w ould be dampene d if theircrea tive works couldbe c opiedand streamed o ver t he In terne t in derog ation of th eir e xclus ive p roper ty ri ghts.

Furth er, t here is a delic ate d istin ctionbetw een enabl ing b road publi c acc ess a nd en ablin g eas e of acces s to copyr ighte d wor ks. The s ervic e pro videdby i vi is targ eted

more towar d con venie nce t han a ccess , andthe publi c wil l

-37-still be a ble t o acc ess p laint iffs' prog rams throu gh me ans

otherthanivi' s Int ernet serv ice, inclu ding cable telev ision . Pr elimi naril y enj oinin g def endan ts' s tream ing of pl ainti ffs' telev isionprog rammi ng ov er th e Int ernet , live, for profi t, an d wit hout plain tiffs ' con sent does not inhib it th e pub lic's abil ity t o acc ess t he pr ogram s. A preli minar y inj uncti on, m oreov er, d oes n ot af fect servi ces that have obtai ned p laint iffs' cons ent t o ret ransm it th eir copyr ighte d tel evisi on pr ogramming over the I ntern et.

Accor dingl y, we conc lude the d istri ct co urt d id not a buse its d iscre tion in fi ndingthat a pr elimi nary injun ctionwoul d not diss erve the p ublicinte rest. CONCL USION We ha ve co nside red d efend ants' rema iningarguments and c onclu de th at th ey ar e wit hout merit . Fo r the reas ons set f orth above , we hold that the d istri ct co urt d id no t abuse its discr etionin g ranti ng a preli minar y inj uncti on to plain tiffs , andthe judgment o f the dist rict court is AFFIRMED.

-38-