I Spy with My Little IP - An IP Address Not Enough to Identify Copyright Infringer, Says US Court of Appeals

The identification of infringers of intellectual property is incredibly important in order to mount a proper and, above all, fair prosecution of those who are infringing on your rights. This is, however, exceedingly difficult in the Internet age, where the person downloading a movie, for example, is difficult to tell from a household of four, let alone the swathes of nameless ‘individuals’ occupying Internet services. The IP address of a given for each computer, identifying them separately in a network when connected to it, has long been one way of distinguishing the infringers from other users. The protocol still has its issues in certainty, and therefore, is it a reliable piece of evidence when establishing liability? The US Court of Appeals took on this question not long ago.

The case of Cobbler Nevada LLC v Thomas Gonzales concerned the movie ‘The Cobbler’, for which Cobbler Nevada owned the copyrights to. Due to its popularity, the movie was swiftly shared on many websites online using the BitTorrent protocol. Cobbler Nevada identified one IP address in Nevada which downloaded and distributed the movie without authorization, later further identified as being Mr Gonzales’ internet service. The connection, however, was a freely accessible one, which was used by both residents and visitors at an adult care home. Legal counsel for Cobbler Nevada determined that they were unable to confirm that Mr Gonzales was the infringer in question. Nevertheless the company filed a complaint against him, alleging they copied and distributed the work online, basing this on the fact that he was the subscriber of the IP address used to do so.

The crux of the matter is whether the IP address used in the matter is enough to prove that Mr Gonzales had indeed been the infringing party. The Court correctly highlighted that “…a particular IP address (i.e., an account holder)… does not mean that the internet subscriber is also the infringer… simply establishing an account does not mean the subscriber is even accessing the internet, and multiple devices can access the internet under the same IP address”. This fact is further exacerbated by the fact that many people were able to freely access the connection at the location.

Cobbler Nevada promptly moved to more traditional
identification methods

The US court have firmly established that, for a claim to be established, you “…must show… the defendant himself violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights”. The Court quickly determined that Cobbler Nevada had not done so in this case. As discussed above, their internal investigations yielded no confirmed result, and clearly led to unsubstantiated allegations of infringement. The claim was later amended to simply refer to the IP address and no particular defendant, which still left the claim with no clearly identified infringer.

The second claim revolved around contributory infringement, i.e. that Mr Gonzales had encouraged or facilitated the infringing activities using his network connection. To put into more concrete terms: "...one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another". Cobbler Nevada claimed that Mr Gonzales had failed to adequately police his Internet connection, especially in the light of several notices sent to him regarding the matter. The Court, yet again, dismissed this allegation out of hand, as the perfunctory allegation does not sufficiently link him to the alleged infringement. The courts have previously denied contributory liability merely through the possibility of the use of a technology to infringe in Sony Corporation v Universal City Studios (more on which here), which similarly would apply to an open Internet network.

Contributory infringement requires two strands of liability: (i) actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts; or (ii) distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of ‘substantial’ or ‘commercially significant’ non-infringing uses.

Cobbler Nevada lacked any allegations that Mr Gonzales had infringed along the first strand. They had done no acts to encourage anyone to infringe any rights, or materially contributed to the same. Similarly his Internet service was not capable of distributing a product or service that is not capable of substantial or significant non-infringing uses. The Court noted that Internet service owners should not have an affirmative duty to actively monitor their Internet connection.

The Court ultimately dismissed Cobbler Nevada's claim.

The case is an important milestone in establishing firmer rules of identification on the Internet. Should we simply use the closes possible approximator of liability we could expose swathes of people to direct or indirect liability, which is clearly not the intention of the legislation. While the lack of certainty in using IP addresses to identify potential infringers has been established before, this is an important reminder of the fact. Even so, infringers could face liability when identified via an IP address, so the decision is by no means absolution for the wicked.

Sales are Offline - Advocate General Allows for the Restriction of Third-Party Sales of Goods Online

Selling goods online can be incredibly lucrative, since the potential reach of your business can be near anywhere in the world to millions of people. Many companies therefore sell their goods either exclusively online, or through various third-parties, who could even purchase your goods and then resell them elsewhere without your permission. While the exhaustion of rights is quite pertinent in this scenario (e.g. more on which in relation to patents can be found here), could you still be able to prevent others from selling your goods? After a lengthy spell in the European Courts, a case dealing with just this question has landed on an Advocate General's desk, who has given their opinion on it only some weeks ago.

The case of Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH dealt with the sale of luxury cosmetics, made by Coty. The company sells its goods through a variety of distributors in a select network, all of which are contracted to do so under a distribution agreement (and its various undertakings). Akzente has been a Coty distributor for some years selling their goods via their retailer stores, including physical locations and via the Internet, primarily through Amazon.de. Coty wanted to make changes to their distributor agreement, which, among others, required that all goods sold online be sold via an electronic store window (not using websites like Amazon) to protect the brand and its image. Akzente refused the amendments, and Coty took the matter to court, which ultimately ended up going to the CJEU.

The crux of the case revolves around the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU and its provisions preventing the distortion of competition. Article 101 of the TFEU, in short, prevents companies from employing contractual measures that affect trade between Member States in a negative way. This could potentially include selective distribution systems, such as Coty's.

The CJEU faced four questions from the referring court, which primarily focussed on the applicability of Article 101 to the above facts.

The first question, as summarized by the Court, asked "…whether selective distribution networks for the distribution of luxury and prestige goods aimed mainly at preserving the luxury image of those goods are caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU".

The AG considered both parties' submissions relating to the first question, ultimately deciding that, in his opinion, that selective distribution networks for luxury goods would not be caught by Article 101. Following previous case law, the AG set out the three criteria that have to be met for purely qualitative selective distribution systems not to be prohibited under Article 101:

(1) it must be established that the properties of the product necessitate a selective distribution system, in the sense that such a system constitutes a legitimate requirement, having regard to the nature of the products concerned, and in particular their high quality or highly technical nature, in order to preserve their quality and to ensure that they are correctly used; (2) resellers must be chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature which are determined uniformly for all potential resellers and applied in a non-discriminatory manner; and (3) the criteria defined must not go beyond what is necessary.

Online sales definitely make life easier

The first criteria, necessity of the selective distribution system, needs to take into account the qualitative characteristics of the goods themselves, i.e. that it maintains the high quality of the goods when sold. This can include both the physical characteristics and the 'luxury' image of the goods. The AG summarized that "…the selective distribution networks relating to the distribution of luxury and prestige goods and seeking mainly to preserve the brand image of those goods are not caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU". Even so, the AG wanted the CJEU to clarify the possible prohibition of these types of clauses, which has been asserted under case law (particularly in Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique).

The AG considered that the case should not negate prior case law regarding the allowance of selective distribution networks under EU law, as its judgment only related to the review of the proportionality of a clause preventing the sale of goods online outright. However, he still observed that should the objective of protecting the prestige of the goods not be legitimate and therefore not allowed under EU law. Retaining the exemption for the above distribution systems is important for the preservation of trademark rights, which could be compromised if not allowed to be protected.

Ultimately, the AG set out that the answer to question one should be that such selective distribution systems should be allowed under Article 101, provided they conform to the three criteria set above.

The second question was summarized by the AG asking "…whether and to what extent Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury products, who operate as authorised retailers on the market, from using in a discernible manner third-party platforms for internet sales of the products concerned".

Following Metro SB-Groβmärkte, the AG set out that, to answer the above question, one would have to assess whether "…operators were chosen by reference to objective criteria of a qualitative nature, determined uniformly for all potential resellers and applied in a non-discriminatory fashion, whether the properties of the product(s) concerned require, in order to preserve their quality and to ensure that they are correctly used, such a distribution network and… whether the conditions defined are consistent with the principle of proportionality". He did note that only the necessity and proportionality criteria would have to be considered in this instance.

Should the prohibition of the use of third-party platforms be used legitimately to protect the quality of the goods, the AG considered this to be allowable. Not only does it potentially ensure that the goods are authentic, but also protects the brand. Therefore the prevention of the use of third-party websites in a distribution agreement would not be contrary to competition law. Coty didn't prevent the parties from selling them online altogether, allowing the goods to be sold on the sellers' websites, just not on third-party sites like Amazon.

The AG also considered that the clause would not be disproportionate to the objective pursued. Due to the original supplier not being able to control the third-party pages in the absence of a direct contractual relationship with them (as opposed to with the distributors), the clause would be proportionate to reach the means of controlling quality. He concluded that the clause would therefore be compatible with Article 101.

Finally, the AG, under the guise of a hypothetical determination of an infringement of Article 101 in a clause such as in the matter, set out possible further provisions that might come into play in that event. This would be Article 4(b) and 4(c) of the Vertical Agreements Regulation. These relate to the restriction of the territory in which goods can be sold, and a restriction of passive sales respectively.

In short, the AG considered that the prohibition imposed on members of the distribution system was not a restriction on the seller's customers under Article 4(b). The clause only prevents the seller from selling on third-party websites, and not online entirely, which does not limit the territory or customers accessible to the seller. The prohibition was not a restriction of passive sales under Article 4(c) either, as the restriction only applies to third-party websites, and not the entire internet. Passive sales can happen via the seller's website just as well as from a third-party site.

The case will be very important to suppliers of luxury goods who wish to maintain the image and the distribution networks selling the goods in a very close and controlled fashion. The AG's opinion would seem to be correct, since the disallowance of these types of restrictions could genuinely dilute the image and value of luxury goods, and only guide the way in which the goods are sold, not preventing some avenues like online sales. In the end the CJEU will decide the matter, but it seems unlikely they will deviate from the AG's opinion.

Source: IPKat

Locked Out - Providers of WiFi Access Not Liable for Copyright Infringement, Says CJEU

As wireless internet connections have become near ubiquitous in our daily lives amongst the cafés, libraries or businesses we visit, so has our appreciation for the facility, especially when traveling when a weary traveler might not have a connection on their smartphone. But underneath these open networks lurks the danger, and question, of possible abuse, and thus liability for those who operate the networks. This matter has been litigated in the European courts for some time now, and after an Advocate General's opinion early this year (discussed more here), many IP specialists have been waiting for the decision in McFadden; something the CJEU finally handed down late last week.

The case of Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH dealt with the provision of an unprotected wireless network connection by Mr Mc Fadden at his business selling and leasing lighting and sound systems, which aimed to bring in business and interest for his endeavor.  In late 2010 a song was shared in his network by a third-party (the rights to which Sony Music owned), and Sony subsequently sent Mr Mc Fadden a notice to this effect. Mr Mc Fadden then took the matter to court, seeking a negative declaration of infringement, to which Sony counterclaimed infringement. The matter ultimately ended up in the CJEU, who sought to take on the matter of liability of infringement for the provider of an unprotected wireless network.

The referring court asked eight questions of the CJEU, who took each question in turn to answer the matter.

The first question dealt with whether the provision of an open WiFi connection could fall under Article 12(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, i.e. whether the service would be classed as an 'information society service'. The Court quickly saw that, even in the light of a lack of remuneration (as required by EU legislation in this instance), the service would be classed as an 'information society service' under the Directive if "...the activity is performed by the service provider in question for the purposes of advertising the goods sold or services supplied by that service provider". The provision of the service is clearly therefore equated to one producing a monetary gain, even if not charged for on the outset, possibly therefore being afforded safe harbor protection as a 'mere conduit'.

The CJEU then moved onto questions two and three, which they summarized together as asking whether Article 12(1) of the Directive only requires the provision of the aforementioned service so as to be included, or if further conditions have to be met for it to be deemed as have been provided under the Article. This would include a contractual relationship and the advertisement of the provider's services. The Court concluded that, for the service to have been provided under the provision, the access must not "...go beyond the boundaries of a technical, automatic and passive process for the transmission of the required information, there being no further conditions to be satisfied". This follows recital 43 to the tee, and clearly the mere passive provision of such a service would be deemed to have been 'provided' by virtue of doing only that.

Password required? Not interested!

The Court then answered the remaining questions in a non-sequential fashion, tackling question six first. This asks whether Article 12(1) should be interpreted as including a further condition set out in Article 14(1)(b) (on the removal of infringing content upon notification thereof). The CJEU saw that, as the Articles dealt with very different services (communication services v hosting), the condition does not apply to the provision of more transient services, but to ones that remain more permanent in the provided services (meaning, content hosted on a website stays on said website till removed, unlike in mere transient communication using a wireless connection).

This was followed by questions seven and eight, which the CJEU clumped together, summarizing them as asking whether Article 12(1) includes any further provisions in addition to the one within the Article, which are not expressly mentioned. The Court quickly dismissed this assertion, as further conditions would clearly impede the balance sought by the legislature in the introduction of the provision.

The Court then moved onto question four, which, in essence, asked whether a person (or entity) harmed through the infringement of a right could seek injunctive relief and/or possible costs for the harm caused using the above service to do so. If read in seclusion, the Article does preclude a person harmed from seeking such remedies; however, it does not expressly prevent them from doing so using national authorities to prevent the infringement from continuing. This would seem correct, as Article 12(3) expressly does not preclude national authorities from requiring such actions and/or allowing for the retrieval of costs.

Finally, questions five, nine and ten remained, which asked effectively whether the granting of an injunction such as the above is allowed (and complied with by the provider), when the provider is required to secure their connection through either a password or by monitoring the connection used. The Court emphasized the need to strike a balance between the rights afforded by the Directive and the Enforcement Directive 2004/48, especially when multiple rights are engaged in such an issue (as is the case here). The Court considered the different ways in which IP rights could be protected, and decided that "...a measure intended to secure an internet connection by means of a password must be considered to be necessary in order to ensure the effective protection of the fundamental right to protection of intellectual property". This measure would, according to the Court, protect both rights in intellectual property, as well as the freedom to conduct business through the supply on a wireless connection and the right to information in using the above. One has to, though, provide their details in order to be able to use the connection and therefore be identified if needed.

The CJEU's decision sets out a practical approach to protecting both interests, while not overly restricting the provision of wireless connections. The striking of this balance was key, and the CJEU seem to have settled on the right answer. The measures required are by no means excessive, and afford the provider plenty of protection in the event of the connection's abuse.

Tunneling Through the Internet - VPNs and IP Law

Today's Internet users are more savvy and capable than ever before, and many users' desires for "free" content often leads them to find ways through which to attain that content, even if it's potentially skirting the law using a variety of technological means. Although piracy by itself is a hot topic these days, and often misunderstood (the discussion of piracy and theft on this blog here), the discussion revolving around the subject matter can lead to hyperbolic statements or even the misunderstanding of technological means and their legitimate uses in light of online copyright infringement. One such technology is what are called "Virtual Private Networks", or VPNs, which allow you to create a secure connection through a network service to the public Internet at large, masking who you are and where you are through that service. These connections are also often encrypted and secured through a number of ways, which can be used for both legitimate and questionable uses. Even so, whether the use of VPNs is against the law is not exactly clear-cut, and merits some discussion.

Although sometimes stigmatized, much like in a recent statement by the BBC to the Australian government stating that: "...[suspicious] behavior may include the illegitimate use by Internet users of IP obfuscation tools [such as VPNs] in combination with high download volumes", VPNs do serve a legitimate and arguably useful function. Should an individual wish to mask their Internet traffic from potential government surveillance or the monitoring by any other third parties (irrespective of the nature of your activities online), VPNs handle this quite well. Such an example lies just with are friends in Australia, where new laws have been discussed giving certain bodies potentially free roam in the monitoring of Australians' Internet usage. The proposed law has flared up interests in such services, and one can argue that given such broad tools some level of obfuscation can be said to be reasonable, whether you infringe copyright or not online.

But at the heart of this lies the question of legality, and as said above, this is not wholly straightforward. VPNs enable you to view content which is often not available due to licensing issues beyond certain borders, of which a great example is Netflix, which's offerings vary quite drastically depending on where you are. As such you would not imagine, as a paying subscriber, that accessing said content could infringe any laws, especially since you are paying your dues. Yet those licensing agreements are there for a reason, and weaseling your way to see that content can be a moral and legal grey area.

Some networks are probably not worth accessing  

An argument as to the moral side of things was put forth by Simon Haupt, who argued that "[p]aying for the... service means your money goes to whoever holds the [local] rights for the shows on Netflix. If you're watching [for example] the U.S. service, the rights holders... aren't getting their fair share". This can be argued to be slightly misleading, and as proved by Michael Geist, is indeed disingenuous to an extent, as Netflix for example, pays the same amount for the shows it provides no matter how many times or where they are watched from. Although certain licensing issues can be argued, such as if a show is licensed exclusively to a certain company in country A, but people in that country watch it through Netflix from country B, which was not intended due to the exclusivity of that agreement. This could potentially deprive that party of the commercialization of that work, but is still a hard thing to argue, especially against the users themselves.

Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 296ZA, a company with an exclusive right to the copying or communication to the public of a work has the same rights of enforcement against a person who circumvents, or attempts to do so, any technological means through which said works are protected. Although, at least prima facie, it is quite hard to argue in terms of geo-blocking, one could potentially argue that VPNs and their use in the viewing of restricted content might infringe copyright through section 296ZA. This can be easily countered by the simple fact that it would only apply to the circumvention of exclusion through non-payment of a subscription fee for example, and not so much regional restrictions.

Similar provisions exist elsewhere in the common law as well. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 prescribes under section 116AN that the circumvention of protection measures infringes copyright, potentially including regional locking. The Australian position on whether regional locking is truly a 'technological measure' is still up in the air, but not an entirely impossible inclusion. In the US the old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act protects content from being accessed from non-authorized computers, potentially including geo-blocked content, although no case law has taken that notion on as of yet.

But as one can see the use of VPNs is a true pickle, and has no clear and easy answer as to its legality. Although mounting pressure is being put on the enforcement of regional restrictions on companies such as Netflix, this writer for one highly doubts it will be a legal battle worth waging unless there is a drastic change in the tides of copyright legislation. As for now we're all able to enjoy our forbidden fruit across the pond through services we enjoy and pay for, but be warned: you might experience restrictions on through the companies themselves eventually.

Source: Lawyers Weekly

The US Supreme Court Faces Aereo and Web Streaming

Ever since its emergence in early 2012 the tech company Aereo has ruffled some feathers within the broadcasting sphere, and rightfully so. As discussed prior on this very blog, the website offers the ability to both stream and watch TV on-demand for a subscription fee, and functions much like a online DVR system as opposed to a licence based service provider such as Netflix. Although initially winning in the District Court of New York, the case has finally come to the US Supreme Court for final judgment, and presents a curious argument which will potentially affect the future of online streaming quite significantly.

The initial article on this blog discussed the Aereo case in the District Court of New York where the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they would prevail on the merits of their infringement case, after which the case was subsequently appealed and went to the US Court of Appeals. It is worth discussing the issues again in light of this decision, facing final consideration in the US Supreme Court.

Under US copyright a copyright holder has an exclusive right to publicly perform their copyrighted works such as TV shows. Through this the Court was faced with determining whether Aereo's broadcasting of TV shows to its subscribers, whether live or on-demand, would amount to an infringement of this right as no licence was sought or paid for from the copyright holders of their respective contents broadcast over Aereo's systems.

"There has to be a better way!", thought Terry

The case largely hinges on the Transmit Clause within the US Copyright Act 1976, under which a public performance of a copyrighted work includes its transmission via cables, such as cable TV programming. The Clause's interpretation in the case of Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings, or more commonly known as the Cablevision case, is highly important in relation to Aereo and their potential infringement of the aforementioned public performance right. Under the Cablevision interpretation of the Transmit Clause, the Court of Appeals had to first consider the potential size of the audience of the transmission. A smaller amount of viewers, or a restricted ability to view the content, such as individual copies, would clearly weigh against the finding of a public performance of the copyrighted work. Secondly the court would have to avoid aggregating private transmissions of the works, making it irrelevant for the court to consider a large number of individual transmissions as opposed to a single, viewable by all transmission. This is important when assessing the first point, as a restricted and isolated transmission of a work would not be a public performance, clearly then not infringing that right. Thirdly the court would have to aggregate any transmissions made from a single copy of the work, i.e. if a single DVD is played in a player and distributed to several TVs. That transmission would clearly be a public performance of the work, at least more so than individual transmissions from individual copies. Finally, the court would have to take into account the factors which limit the potential size of the public who would view the transmission (emphasis the court's) in applying the Transmit Clause.

The Cablevision decision hinged on the very fact that all copies of the TV shows which were recorded through their DVR system were individual copies, and not merely a copy which was available to all. This limited both the actual and the potential amount of viewers for the copied transmission, clearly not making the performance a public one. Aereo's service functions much like Cablevision's DVR system, only creating a single copy viewable by that particular user upon their request to record it. As such Aereo's copies would, arguably at least, not be public performances, and not infringe the plaintiffs' rights in that content. Aereo's lack of licence is irrelevant as one is only required for public performances; something which Aereo's services are not doing. The Court of Appeals also reject the aggregation of Aereo's transmissions, as Cablevision's DVR functioned in a very similar way, and aggregating Aereo's transmissions would mean that Cablevision's transmissions would also have to be aggregated, clearly going against the precedent set by the case. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs' appeal, which is now being taken to the highest court in the US for final consideration.

The decision would have quite wide-ranging implications for both cable broadcasters and services much like Aereo. As the company pays no licencing fees to copyright holders, should they be allowed to operate and be deemed not to infringe copyright, similar services would undoubtedly spring up and cause significant losses to cable providers. On the other hand should the Supreme Court decide that Aereo infringes copyright, it could potentially restrict the future of the Cloud and cloud computing, further restricting the freedom of use over copyrighted content, at least on a commercial level. What ever the result will be, this writer for one is very interested in the decision and its potential impact on either side of the field.

Copyright and Advert Hopping

To the avid TV watcher, commercials can be both the bane of their existence, providing a break at the crucial moment of your favorite show just when it got interesting, or giving you the perfect opportunity to make a quick snack or to dash off into the bathroom. Since the advent of digital means to record TV, both through the early years of VCRs down till the modern DVR or even recording live TV on demand when you desperately need to pause the action, consumers have always wanted a way to skip them if they so please. For companies who provide your weekly fix of digital entertainment galore, they're a necessary source of revenue. These two conflicting interests pose a dilemma, and a struggle from both sides to keep their respective interests in front of the other. But could skipping commercials infringe copyright? In a recent decision, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide this very fact.

Foxes are very protective of their copyright

The case of Fox Broadcasting Company v Dish Network LLC concerned a service offered by Dish called the "Hopper". What this little nifty device was what is commonly referred to as a DVR, a Digital Video Recorder, which can be set to record any given TV show at any given time, much like its analogue cousin back in the era of VCRs. After some years of launching its Hopper device, Dish started to offer a capability in the device called "Autohop", which automatically would skip over commercials, only subjecting the person watching the show to the first few seconds and the last few seconds of any given commercial break. Unlike older versions of similar technologies, the function does not require any action on the viewer's part, but skips the commercials once the feature is enabled, whereas in older iterations of DVRs one would only have the ability to skip a certain time, for example 30 second increments. Fox Broadcasting and Dish had a contract between them, where among other things Dish customers were not to be able to fast-forward through any commercials when recording Fox's shows. Fox subsequently sued Dish for breach of contract and copyright infringement, of which the latter is of more interests to us in this instance.

In seeking a preliminary injunction, stopping Dish's service, Fox would have to prove (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. In analyzing the court's decision at first instance, the Court of Appeals looked through precedent to establish whether Fox's claim would fulfill the above criteria to acquire an injunction. Drawing from the Sony Betamax case (discussed on this blog here) the court had to assess whether Dish's service would fall under fair use, which it did. In their decision the court saw that the District Court had correctly decided that Fox did not have a likelihood of success in their case, as Dish was not the one making the copy of the program; Fox would not have suffered irreparable harm due to Dish's service; nor was there a public interest for the granting of an injunction. In finding that there was no likelihood of success for Fox, the court saw that the scales were not tipping in their favor, which solidified Fox's case as one which did not merit an injunction.

The court did note that Fox did not have a claim to begin with as they do not own the copyright to any of the advertisements shown on its network. Without copyright there cannot really be infringement on that copyright, or at least a claim for such. Arguably the court's view was the correct one, and forcing consumers to watch adverts through technological means seems harsh at best. Technology should be used to enable better consumer experiences as opposed to being force-fed something which they potentially don't want to see. Fox can still claim damages for copies made by Dish for quality assurance purposes, which did infringe copyright, but whether they take action will remain to be seen, although seemingly a point of principle should they opt to do so.

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation