The judge's summary judgment has an interesting criticism: "Plaintiffs set forth several arguments that defendants' Locast service does not come within the statutory exemption. For the most part, they present such conflicting characterizations of the facts that they are more suited to trial than a summary disposition." It seems like the judge did not find most of their statements persuasive, but rather than comment further and based on the 2019 hearing, limited himself to the sole determination that expansion of service was nowhere to be found in 17 USC 111. It would have been interesting to read more about what he didn't like about their filings. <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217.322.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.52...</a><p>I didn't mind the interruptions when I was a free user, and didn't mind the $5. Unfortunately, the statute as interpreted seems to mean that unless your non-profit retransmission network exists in its entirety in whole cloth from the beginning, it can't be legal. I'm not sure this was intended either. I think the EFF does have some room to appeal.