▁the ▁United ▁States ▁House ▁Energy ▁Sub comm ittee ▁on ▁Communic ations ▁and ▁Technology ▁on ▁June ▁ 2 7 , ▁ 2 0 1 2 , ▁Charlie ▁Er gen ▁made ▁further ▁remarks ▁def ending ▁the ▁leg ality ▁of ▁the ▁Ho pper ▁and ▁Auto H op , ▁stating ▁that ▁the ▁service ▁"[ does ] ▁nothing ▁more ▁than ▁impro ving ▁upon ▁existing , ▁leg ally ▁accepted , ▁and ▁widely ▁available ▁techn ologies ". ▁He ▁also ▁remarked ▁that ▁with ▁the ▁feature , ▁" allow ing ▁your ▁k ids ▁to ▁watch ▁TV ▁doesn ’ t ▁have ▁to ▁mean ▁they ▁have ▁no ▁choice ▁but ▁to ▁see ▁commer ci als ▁for ▁j unk ▁food ▁and ▁alco hol ." ▁The ▁next ▁day , ▁Michael ▁Pet ric one ▁of ▁the ▁Cons umer ▁Electron ics ▁Association ▁spoke ▁to ▁the ▁sub comm ittee , ▁li ken ing ▁Ho pper ▁to ▁earlier ▁time ▁sh ifting ▁devices , ▁and ▁stating ▁that ▁the ▁device ▁would ▁encou rage ▁people ▁to ▁watch ▁TV ▁more . ▁ ▁In ▁pre lim inary ▁jud g ement ▁on ▁July ▁ 9 , ▁Sw ain ▁denied ▁D ish ' s ▁request ▁to ▁set ▁aside ▁the ▁issue ▁of ▁copy right ▁viol ations , ▁r uling ▁that ▁D ish ' s ▁argument ▁lack ed ▁specific ity . ▁She ▁also ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁case ▁could ▁be ▁heard ▁in ▁Los ▁Angeles , ▁thereby ▁elimin ating ▁New ▁York ▁as ▁a ▁potential ▁ven ue . ▁On ▁November ▁ 7 , ▁ 2 0 1 2 , ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁District ▁Court ▁for ▁the ▁Central ▁District ▁of ▁California ▁denied ▁Fox '