their consent. The strength of plaintiffs’ negotiating platform and business model would decline. The quantity and quality of efforts put into creating television programming, retransmission and advertising revenues, distribution models and schedules— all would be adversely affected. These harms would extend to other copyright holders of television programming. Continued live retransmissions of copyrighted television programming over the Internet without consent would thus threaten to destabilize the entire industry. Second, plaintiffs’ losses would be difficult to measure and monetary damages would be insufficient to remedy the harms. See eBay, 547 U.S. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837; Salinger, 607 F.3d at 80; Tom Doherty Assoc., Inc. v. Saban Entm’t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 38 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In this case, there is no assurance that
holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding injunctive relief appropriate to avoid the unfairness of denying an injunction to a plaintiff on the ground that money damages are available only to confront the plaintiff at a trial on the merits with the rule that the quantification of damages must be based on more than speculation holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages