to the subcommittee, likening Hopper to earlier time shifting devices, and stating that the device would encourage people to watch TV more. In preliminary judgement on July 9, Swain denied Dish's request to set aside the issue of copyright violations, ruling that Dish's argument lacked specificity. She also ruled that the case could be heard in Los Angeles, thereby eliminating New York as a potential venue. On November 7, 2012, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Fox's motion for preliminary injunction for the reasons mainly because PTAT and AutoHop did not infringe copyrights and did not breach the contract; and while QA copies constituted a copyright infringement and breached the contract, the harm from the copies was not irreparable, but was compensable with money. Fox appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision with a very deferential standard of review, and affirmed it. In March 2014, Disney dropped its lawsuit against Dish Network with the signing of a comprehensive carriage deal for its networks (along with several new networks, such as Disney Junior, Longhorn Network, and SEC Network), including high definition feeds and TV Everywhere access for the networks and ABC owned-and-operated stations, and the ability to distribute their networks on a planned over-the-top internet television service. As a condition of the new deal, Dish Network agreed to disable the ability to use AutoHop on ABC programming within 72 hours of its original airing. In June 2014, following a court decision which ruled that Aereo—a service which allowed users to rent an antenna to stream over-the-air television channels over the internet—was engaging in an unauthorized public performance of copyrighted television programming, Fox also argued to the Ninth Circuit that the place-shifting functionality of the Hopper with Sling boxes constituted "virtually identical" practices, "albeit also in violation of an express contractual prohibition", and that Dish "repeatedly raised" a defense that it was merely a provider of equipment and not the content streamed using it—which had been rejected during the Aereo case. Dish objected to Fox's claim, stating that "customers pay for the right to receive works, with Fox’s authorization, and do receive them at home before sending them to themselves," and that the device was not centrally controlled. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Dish Network, finding that