Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/219789946/ABC-vs-Aereo-ABC-et-al-s-Petitioner-s-Brief-to-the-Supreme-Court-13-461-ABC-Et-Al
Timestamp: 2018-03-21 09:11:37
Document Index: 170098761

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1254', 'art. 1', '§ 8', '§ 101', 'art. 1', '§ 8']

ABC vs Aereo, ABC et al's Petitioner's Brief to the Supreme Court 13-461 ABC Et Al | Nbc Universal | Copyright
Description: This document is a petitioner's brief filed by ABC, et al in its Supreme Court case against Barry Diller-backed Aereo. It outlines the ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and other broadcasters' arguments against A...
This document is a petitioner's brief filed by ABC, et al in its Supreme Court case against Barry Diller-backed Aereo. It outlines the ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and other broadcasters' arguments against Aereo in this landmark appellate case.
OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at 712 F.3d 676 and reprinted at Pet.App.1a–58a. The order of the Court of Appeals denying rehearing en banc and Judge Chin’s accompanying dissent are reported at 722 F.3d 500 and reprinted at Pet.App.127a–55a. The District Court’s opinion denying a preliminary injunction is reported at 874 F. Supp. 2d 373 and reprinted at Pet.App.59a–126a. JURISDICTION The Court of Appeals entered judgment on April 1, 2013. A timely petition for rehearing en banc was denied on July 16, 2013. This Court granted certiorari on January 10, 2014. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 8, and the relevant portions of sections 101 and 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, are reproduced in the appendix to this brief. App.1a–3a. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Statutory Background The Constitution empowers Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 8. The basic “philosophy behind the clause … is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare
See, e.g., Community Television of Utah, LLC dba KMYU v. Aereo, No. 13-910, Memo. Decision & Order (D. Utah Feb. 19, 2014) (rejecting Cablevision’s interpretation of the transmit clause and enjoining Aereo from operating in the Tenth Circuit); Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC , __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 4763414 (D.D.C. Sept. 5, 2013) (rejecting Cablevision’s interpretation of the transmit clause and enjoining service functionally identical to Aereo from operating
47 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the decision below. Respectfully submitted, PAUL M. SMITH* MATTHEW E. PRICE JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave. NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6060 psmith@jenner.com RICHARD L. STONE* AMY M. GALLEGOS JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 239-5100 PAUL D. CLEMENT† Counsel of Record ERIN E. MURPHY BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street NW Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 234-0090 pclement@bancroftpllc.com BRUCE P. KELLER† JEFFREY P. CUNARD DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue 31st Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 909-6000
Documents Similar To ABC vs Aereo, ABC et al's Petitioner's Brief to the Supreme Court 13-461 ABC Et Al