Scicluna v. Wells

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a service \technologically analogous\ to Aereo's was engaged in public performances
• holding that a service “technologically analogous” to Aer-eo’s was engaged in public performances
• concluding that ”[t]he statute provides an exclusive right to transmit a performance publicly, but does not by its express terms require that two members of the public receive the performance from the same transmission”
• finding that the third and fourth factors favored the plaintiffs because FilmOn X had “no equitable interest in continuing an infringing activity”
• declining to follow Cablevision and enjoining an Aereo-like system based on plain meaning of § 101
• declining to follow Cablevision and enjoining an Aereo-like system based on plain meaning of § 101

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).