Emergency motions to stay and limit a nearly...

prohibited by the Preliminary Injunction is uncompensated infringement of those holders’ exclusive right to public performance of their works, and the public interest is not harmed by requiring FilmOn X to cease infringement.” Collyer agreed with broadcasters that Aereo’s wins in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals don’t mean that FilmOn will win its D.C. case. “FilmOn X has simply recycled the same arguments that this Court rejected,” said the broadcasters’ opposition motion, pointing to FilmOn’s contentions that the injunction undercuts other courts and will harm its business. “The mere existence of two non-controlling, widely-criticized cases supporting FilmOnX does not create a strong likelihood that the D.C. Circuit will reverse the injunction.” FilmOn had argued that being enjoined throughout the nation -- except in the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit -- will cause it to lose customers to similar service Aereo, which isn’t enjoined anywhere. That’s “unsupportable” said the plaintiff filings: “FilmOnX’s argument boils down to the plea that it should be allowed to continue to infringe because there is another infringing service in operation.” Filings by FilmOn also show that it has a substantial international following that would be unaffected by the injunction, broadcasters said. The court should also reject FilmOn’s argument that the injunction bond the broadcasters are required to pay should be increased from $250,000 to $2.75 million, the filing said. FilmOn X hasn’t presented any evidence “beyond the mere say-so of counsel that $250,000 would not be sufficient to cover its potential losses, and Plaintiffs have more than sufficient resources in the unlikely event that the injunction was erroneously issued and FilmOn X incurs more than $250,000 in losses,” said Collyer. “It doesn’t really harm us,” FilmOn CEO Alki David told us in an email. His service has many agreements with independent channels that won’t be affected by the injunction, and will still be able to stream the major broadcasters in the 2nd Circuit, where the injunction doesn’t apply, he said. “The Networks are a must have to be a real pro service but we can wait to get them … no biggie.” David said he will wait for Aereo to win the copyright case brought against it by Hearst in Boston, where FilmOn already has an “antenna farm.” Fox praised the decision and said it fully expects to “continue to prevail,” in an email. David’s attorney Ryan Baker, of Baker Marquart, confirmed his client will abide by the court’s order to cease streaming copyrighted material, but will appeal the decision.