author: DORSEY,-District Judge:

text:
    Matteo BRUNOZZI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Casey McCormick, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cable Communications, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-35623, No. 15-35744
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted November 10, 2016, Portland, Oregon
    Filed March 21, 2017

      Phil Goldsmith (argued), Law Office of Phil Goldsmith, Portland, Oregon; D. Michael Dale, Law Office of D. Michael Dale, Cornelius, Oregon; David A. Schuck, Schuck Law LLC, Vancouver, Washington; Corinna Spencer-Seheurich, Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, Portland, Oregon; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mitchell C. Baker (argued) and Alexander A. Wheatley, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Shenoa Payne, Shenoa Payne Attorney At Law PC, Portland, Oregon, for Amicus Curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
    Before: M. MARGARET McKEOWN and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

       The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

   OPINION

DORSEY,-District Judge:

Matteo Brunozzi and Casey McCormick worked as technicians for Cable Communications, Inc. (CCI) installing cable television and internet services. They filed separate lawsuits against CCI alleging that the company’s compensation plan violates the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207, and Oregon’s statutory requirement that an employer pay all wages earned and unpaid after terminating an employee, ORS 652.140. Brunozzi additionally alleges that CCI violated Oregon’s laws prohibiting discrimination against a private employee who engages in whistleblowing (ORS 659A.199) and wage-claim discussions (ORS 652.355). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CCI on those claims. The technicians appealed. We reverse.

I. Background

A. Technician work and pay

CCI employs technicians to install cable television and internet services for Com-cast customers. McCormick worked for CCI as a technician for almost one year. Brunozzi was similarly employed by CCI for approximately five months. The unchallenged evidence shows that the technicians’ work tasks are assigned by CCI on a daily basis. The company schedules the appointments with the customers; the technicians do not have authority to change appointment times or complete a task on a different day. These technicians’ workweeks ordinarily exceeded 40 hours, and they were routinely scheduled to work six-day weeks.

CCI guarantees that its technicians will earn at least the statutory minimum wage and pays them on a piece-work basis. This means that the technician is paid a fixed rate for each piece of work (i.e., task) that he completes. CCI’s technicians sign a document entitled “Technician Pay Rate Program.” The agreement states that the technician’s gross earnings are the “[t]otal amount billed to the company by the employee for Piece Rate jobs completed in the pay period plus any bonus received ....” It does not explain CCI’s method for calculating the technicians’ pay, but the parties mostly agree about how that is accomplished.

CCI begins by calculating the technician’s “Piece Rate Total” for the week, which is the total value of the piece-work tasks performed by him that week minus any adjustments made for incomplete work or similar reasons. If the technician worked over 40 hours, CCI divides the Piece Rate Total by the total number of hours worked to calculate his “average hourly” rate of pay for that week. This hourly rate is then divided'by two, and the resulting quotient is multiplied by the number of overtime hours the technician worked that week to arrive at the technician’s base overtime pay — his “Piece Rate OT Premium.”

CCI next calculates whether the technician has earned a “Production Bonus” by dividing the Piece Rate Total by 60, multiplying the quotient by 70, and subtracting from that product his Piece Rate Total and any Piece Rate OT Premium. Finally, if the technician earned a Production Bonus and worked overtime, CCI calculates the overtime due on the bonus — the Production Bonus OT Premium — by dividing the Production Bonus by the total number of hours worked in the week, dividing the resulting quotient by two, and multiplying that quotient by the number of overtime hours worked in the week. A technician’s pay each week is his Piece Rate Total plus — to the extent that they are earned— Piece Rate OT Premium, Production Bonus, and Production Bonus OT Premium.

B. Procedural history of the technicians’ lawsuits

Brunozzi filed his complaint in state court alleging that CCI violated: (1) Oregon’s overtime regulations; (2) the FLSA’s overtime regulations; (3) Oregon’s wage-claim- and whistleblowing-discrimination regulations; and (4) Oregon’s wage-payment-on-termination regulations. After CCI removed the case to federal court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment: the company moved on all of Brunozzi’s claims while he moved on his FLSA overtime-violation and Oregon wage-payment-on-termination claims. The district court entered judgment in favor of CCI on Brunozzi’s claims; Brunozzi timely appealed.

McCormick filed his complaint in state court alleging that CCI violated: (1) Oregon’s overtime regulations; (2) the FLSA’s overtime regulations; (3) Oregon’s wage-payment-on-termination regulations; (4) the Oregon Family Medical Leave Act; (5) Oregon’s disability-discrimination regulations; and (6) wrongful termination under Oregon common law. After CCI removed the case to federal court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment: the company sought judgment on all of McCormick’s claims, and he sought judgment on his FLSA overtime-violation and Oregon wage-payment-on-termination claims. The district court entered judgment in favor of the company on McCormick’s FLSA and Oregon wage-payment-on-termination claims. Then the district court entered final judgment under FRCP 54(b) on those claims. McCormick timely appealed.

II. Standard of Review

A district court’s decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 780, 786 (9th Cir. 2008). When the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, “we review each motion ... separately, giving the nonmoving party for each motion the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Id. “When the underlying facts are not in dispute, th[is] court’s only function is to determine whether the district court correctly applied the law.” Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004)). ‘We review the district court’s interpretation of state law, including state statutes, de novo.” Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers Cadillac Group Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643, 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citing In re McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

III. Discussion

A. The technicians’ FLSA overtime-violation claims

1. Overtime pay requirements under the FLSA

“Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 with the goal of ‘protecting] all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.’ ” Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 132 S.Ct. 2156, 2162, 183 L.Ed.2d 153 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)). Among other things, the FLSA requires “employers to compensate employees for hours in excess of 40 per week at a rate of 1½ times the employees’ regular wages.” Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)). “The keystone of [this requirement] is the regular rate of compensation. On that depends the amount of overtime payments [that] are necessary to effectuate the statutory purposes. The proper determination of that rate is therefore of prime importance.” Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 L.Ed. 1705 (1945) (“Youngerman-Reynolds”).

Although not defined in the FLSA, the Supreme Court has interpreted “regular rate” to mean “the hourly rate actually paid the employee for the normal, non-overtime workweek for which he is employed.” Id. (citing Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U.S. 37, 40, 65 S.Ct. 11, 89 L.Ed. 29 (1944)); Parth v. Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr., 630 F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2010). “The regular rate by its very nature must reflect all payments [that] the parties have agreed shall be received regularly during the work week, exclusive of overtime payments.” Id. In determining the statutory regular rate, “[w]e must look ‘not to contract nomenclature’ but to all payments, wages, piece work rates, bonuses, or things of value” that form “part of the normal weekly income” of the employee. Walling v. Alaska Pac. Consol. Min. Co., 152 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 1945). “The ‘regular rate’ of pay under the [FLSA] cannot be left to a declaration by the parties as to what is to be treated as the regular rate for an employee; it must be drawn from what happens under the employment contract.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.108 (citing Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446, 464, 68 S.Ct. 1186, 92 L.Ed. 1502 (1948)).

For employees who are paid “on a piece-rate basis, the regular hourly rate of pay is computed by adding together total earnings for the workweek from piece rates and all other sources (such as production bonuses) and any sums paid for waiting time or other hours worked (except statutory exclusions).” Id. § 778.111(a). “This sum is then divided by the number of hours worked in the week for which such compensation was paid, to yield the pieceworker’s ‘regular rate’ for that week.” Id. A pieceworker is entitled to be paid “the total weekly earnings at this regular rate for all hours worked” and overtime equal to “one-half this regular rate of pay multiplied by the number of hours worked in excess of 40 in the week.” Id. “Only additional half-time pay is required in such cases where the employee has already received straight-time compensation at piece rates or by supplementary payments for all hours worked.” Id.

2. Comparing the FLSA’s requirements with CCI’s pay plan

The technicians argue that CCI’s pay plan allows it to skirt the full burden of the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement. The fault, they say, lies with the Production Bonus, which is designed to decrease in proportion to an increase in the number of overtime hours worked. CCI responds that its plan is legally sound because the-FLSA does not regulate bonus amounts and the technicians are paid their piece-rate wages plus overtime premiums at ½ their regular rate as required by 29 C.F.R. § 778.111.

The crux of the issue is whether CCI’s plan properly calculates a technician’s statutory regular rate. To determine this, we must first determine what the parties agreed a technician is to be paid in a normal, non-overtime workweek. See Youngerman-Reynolds, 325 U.S. at 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242. We then examine if CCI divides that sum by the total number of hours worked in the workweek to determine a technician’s regular hourly rate for that week. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.111(a).

The employment contract states that during a normal, non-overtime workweek, a technician will receive the total value of the piece-work tasks that he completed— his Piece Rate Total — plus a Production Bonus in the amount of 1/6 his Piece Rate Total. Because the Production Bonus is “a portion of regular wages [that] the [technician] is entitled to receive under his regular wage contract[,]” it is not a true bonus as defined by the Department of Labor (DOL). 29 C.F.R. § 778.502(a) (providing that a bonus is a sum paid in “addition to total wages usually because of extra effort of one kind or another, or as a reward for loyal service or as a gift”). Having agreed that the Piece Rate Total plus 1/6 that amount forms the technician’s normal weekly income, CCI must divide the sum of those amounts by the total number of hours worked in a particular week to properly determine the technician’s regular hourly rate for that week. See Youngerman-Reynolds, 325 U.S. at 424, 65 S.Ct. 1242.

But that is not what CCI does during weeks when a technician works overtime. Instead, CCI reduces the Production Bonus paid during a regular forty-hour workweek by the amount of overtime premium that it calculates is due to the technician on his Piece Rate Total. Because a “bonus” of 1/6 the technician’s Piece Rate Total forms part of the technician’s income in a normal, non-overtime week, diminishing or eliminating that “bonus” results in the technician béing paid at a reduced hourly rate during weeks when he works overtime. An agreement, practice, or device that lowers the hourly rate during statutory overtime hours or weeks when statutory overtime is worked is expressly prohibited under the regulations promulgated by the DOL interpreting the FLSA. The regulations state that “the parties cannot lawfully agree that the rate” that is “applicable to a particular type of work” “shall be lower merely because the work is performed during the statutory overtime hours, or during a week in which statutory overtime is worked.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.316. Similarly, when discussing schemes that establish artificially low regular rates in violation of the FLSA, the DOL cautions “that the hourly rate paid for the identical work during the hours in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard cannot be lower than the rate paid for the nonovertime hours nor can the hourly rate vary from week to week inversely with the length of the workweek.” Id. § 778.500(b). Agreements or practices that do this are “ineffective.” See id. § 778.316.

The diminishing “bonus” device in CCI’s pay plan causes it to miscalculáte the technicians’ regular hourly rate during weeks when they work overtime and allows CCI to pay the technicians less during those weeks. We thus hold that CCI’s pay plan violates the FLSA’s overtime provisions, and we reverse the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in CCI’s favor on the technicians’ FLSA claims.

B. The technicians’ claims alleging violations of ORS 652.140

Oregon Revised Statute section 652.140(1) requires employers to pay “all wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge” by “the end of the first business day after the discharge or termination.” The district court found that CCI’s pay plan did not violate either Ore.gon law or the FLSA, so it concluded that the technicians’ ORS 652.140 claims “fall away” and, thus, entered judgment in favor of CCI on those claims. Because we conclude that CCI’s pay plan violates the FLSA’s overtime provisions, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in CCI’s favor on the technicians’ claims under ORS 652.140.

C. Brunozzi’s retaliation claim under ORS 659A.199

Oregon law prohibits a private employer from retaliating against an employee who “has in good faith reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule[,] or regulation.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.199(1). To establish a prima facie ease of retaliation under ORS 659A.199, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he was engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision. C.f. Ruggles v. Cal. Poly. St. Uni., 797 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1986) (reciting elements of a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act).

The record reflects that Brunozzi verbally complained to his immediate supervisors on several occasions that he was not being properly compensated for overtime. Brunozzi’s last complaint came two days before he was terminated, when he told his supervisor that he would not work on Saturday, April 5, 2014, “Because I’m not being paid overtime, as far as I can tell.” Because the district court interpreted “reported” in ORS 659A.199 to mean reports only to authorities that are external to the employer, it found that Brunozzi’s complaints to his supervisors did not constitute protected activity under the statute and entered judgment against him on his retaliation claim. Brunozzi argues that the district court erred when it interpreted ORS 659A.199’s “reported” to include only reports made to external authorities. We agree.

The legislature did not define the term “reported” as it is used in ORS 659A.199, and no Oregon state court has . interpreted that term in the context of this statute. Our role when interpreting a state statute as a matter of first impression is to “determine what meaning the state’s highest court would give to the law.” Bass v. Cty. of Butte, 458 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2006). “Thus, we must follow the state’s rules of statutory interpretation.” Id.

Under Oregon law, “[t]he first step [involves] an examination of text and context.” State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042, 1050-51 (2009) (en banc). In the second step, “[t]he court will consult [proffered legislative history] after examining text and context, even if the court does not perceive an ambiguity in the statute’s text, where that legislative history appears useful to the court’s analysis.” Id. at 1050. Oregon places legislative history “on a par with [the] text and context”' of the statute. Id. at 1049. “However, the extent of the court’s consideration of that history, and the evaluative weight that the court gives it, is for the court to determine.” Id. at 1050-51. In the third and final step, “[i]f the legislature’s intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty.” Id. at 1051.

Textually, ORS 659A.199 is broad and places no limit on the individual to whom the employee’s information must be “reported.” The statute does not provide much context other than to suggest that it is designed to safeguard an employee who, “in good faith[,]” has “reported information” that he “believes is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation.” These clues do not guide us toward either party’s interpretation, so we must consider other cannons of construction.

If the legislature has not defined a statutory term, Oregon courts “ordinarily look to the plain meaning of a statute’s text as a key first step in determining what particular terms mean.” Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, 356 Or. 282, 337 P.3d 768, 776 (2014) (en banc). This “frequently” includes “the approach [of] ... consulting] dictionary definitions of the terms, on the assumption that, if the legislature did not give the term a specialized definition, the dictionary definition reflects the meaning that the legislature would naturally have intended.” Id. Oregon courts regularly consult Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Id. at n.7.

According to that dictionary, “[t]he ordinary meaning of the verb ‘report’ is ‘to give an account of: NARRATE, RELATE, TELL.’ ” Roberts v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., 242 Or.App. 474, 255 P.3d 628, 632-33 (2011) (quoting Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary. 1925 (unabridged ed. 2002)). Oregon courts recognize that “the context in which the word is used adds additional meaning to the definition.” Id. at 633. Examples of other uses of the verb “report” are “to ‘make a charge of misconduct against [another]’ ” or “ ‘to make known to the proper authorities: give notification of.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Webster’s at 1925). But the context of ORS 659A.199 does not provide additional meaning to make either alternative use of “report” applicable. C.f. id. (discussing that ORS 659A.230(1) provides context of criminal activity, complaint, investigation, and trial and civil proceeding). We initially conclude from the text and context of ORS 659A.199 that the Oregon legislature intended to use the ordinary meaning of the verb “report” in this statute: to narrate, relate, tell. This interpretation supports Brunozzi’s argument that the legislature intended ORS 659A.199 to cover both external and internal reports of violations.

The second step of Oregon’s statutory-interpretation methodology is considering pertinent legislative history that a party may proffer. Gaines, 206 P.3d at 1050. The district court was not required to consider the legislative history of ORS 659A.199 because no party proffered any portion of that history to it. Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.020(3). However, Brunozzi and the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) proffer pertinent portions of the legislative history to us; we may consider that history “to the extent that [we find] it ... useful.” Powell’s Books, Inc. v. Kroger, 622 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Gaines, 206 P.3d at 1050-51) (discussing Oregon’s rules of statutory construction and how they contrast with standard federal statutory construction).

The proffered legislative history shows that ORS 659A.199 had its genesis in House Bill 3162, which was introduced to the Oregon Legislative Assembly during the 2009 Regular Session. The bill’s chief sponsor was Representative Stiegler, and it was referred to the House Business and Labor Committee, which held a public hearing on the measure on April 10, 2009. During that hearing, Rep. Stiegler stated that H.B. 3162 puts “private employees on equal footing with public employees at this stage of the game who already have a whistleblowing provision in ORS 659A.” She explained that H.B. 3162 “levels the playing field for the private employee” who has “tried to do the right thing by bringing” violations of state or federal law “to the attention of a superior in the chain of command, and ha[s] ended up paying the price either through demotion, reduction in salary, or loss of employment altogether.” At a later hearing before the Senate, Rep. Stiegler elaborated that H.B. 3162 gives an employee “who wants to do the right thing[,] ... [like] bringing] a bad practice to the [attention of his] higher ups, the ability to do so without repercussion, and hopefully give[s] the employer the opportunity to rectify that situation.” Representative Chris Edwards and Senator Diane Rosenbaum similarly explained that H.B. 3162 would encourage “more internal reporting” by employees “so that the company, maybe even higher up the food chain than whoever is the bad actor, can deal with it internally and [the company] can right [its] own ship without the involvement of the government.”

Numerous people testified in favor of H.B. 3162, including two OTLA attorneys who stated that the bill was necessary because Oregon law did not protect private employees who internally report legal violations to their employers like it protects public whistleblowers. And several Oregonians who had been terminated after they internally reported legal violations to their employers likewise testified in favor of the bill.

We find that the proffered legislative history is useful to answer the question before us. Having examined the text, context, and pertinent legislative history, we find that the Oregon legislature intended the term “reported” in ORS 659A.199 to mean a report of information to either an external or internal authority. We therefore reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in CCI’s favor on Brunozzi’s retaliation claim under ORS 659A.199.

D. Brunozzi’s retaliation claim under ORS 652.355

Brunozzi’s final challenge is to the district court’s entry of summary judgment on his claim that CCI violated ORS 652.355, which prohibits an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee who has discussed, made, or consulted an attorney about “a wage claim.” Brunozzi complained to his supervisors on several occasions that CCI had failed to properly pay him overtime wages, and he refused to work any additional overtime hours (and specifically on Saturday, April 5, 2014) “unless [he] was paid an overtime rate of pay” for those hours. On this evidence, the district court was inclined to find a triable issue of fact regarding whether Brunozzi had made the type of “wage claim” protected by ORS 652.355, but it concluded that Oregon case law does not recognize complaining about inadequate wages as such a claim.

Brunozzi relies on Brown v. American Property Management Corp., 167 Or.App. 53, 1 P.3d 1051 (2000), to argue that Oregon law recognizes that the act of com--plaining about inadequate wages is a protected activity under ORS 652.355. Brown sued his former employer, American Property Management, for unlawful termination. Brown, 1 P.3d at 1053. Brown was a leasing agent for American and contractually entitled to a commission on office space that he leased. Id. Believing that he was not being properly compensated, Brown wrote a letter to his supervisor “complaining that [American] had not paid him for several leases that he had negotiated” and noting that he “had retained a lawyer who had advised him that his claims for commissions were well-founded.” Id. at 1053-54.

But whether the employee had either filed or discussed filing a wage claim within the meaning of ORS 652.355 was not an issue in Brown. The Brown court focused on causation: whether Brown had been suspended because he discussed filing a claim or, as American claimed, to avoid future liability. Brown thus cannot be read as interpreting ORS 652.355 to provide a bright-line rule that an employee makes, discusses, or inquires about a “wage claim” any time he complains about inadequate wages.

Nor does De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, Inc., 244 Or.App. 443, 260 P.3d 700 (2011), relied upon by the district court, control this inquiry. The employee in De Bay argued “that the allegations of his complaint [we]re sufficient to state a claim for common-law wrongful discharge because they allege[d] facts from which it can be shown that he was terminated for exercising important societal obligations and rights recognized in ... ORS 652.355,” but the district court dismissed this claim. De Bay, 260 P.3d at 703. The appellate court affirmed for two reasons: (1) De Bay had “not alleged that he made a wage claim or even discussed a wage claim with anyone,” and (2) “[i]n any event,” “ORS 652.355 provides an adequate remedy for those who have suffered retaliation for bringing a good faith wage claim[,]” so an employee cannot bring “a common-law wrongful discharge claim based on th[at] conduct.” Id. at 704 (citing Carlson v. Crater Lake Lumber Co., 103 Or.App. 190, 796 P.2d 1216 (1990), adh’d to as modified on recons., 105 Or.App. 314, 804 P.2d 511 (1991)). To the extent that De Bay can be read to construe and apply ORS 652.355, it is factually distinguishable because De Bay’s complaints focused on management’s “criminal, illegal, and fraudulent business practice's” related to communications to stockholders and other investors and “the retaliatory reduction of his bonus” as a result of those complaints, not inadequate wages. Id. at 703.

With no Oregon state-court opinion deciding whether complaints like Brunozzi’s constitute a “wage claim” under ORS 652.355, we turn to Oregon’s rules of statutory interpretation. See Perri v. Certified Languages Intern., LLC, 187 Or.App. 76, 66 P.3d 531, 539 (2003), overruled on other grounds by, Cejas Comm. Interiors, Inc. v. Torres-Lizama, 260 Or.App. 87, 316 P.3d 389 (2013). We again begin with the text and context of the statute. ORS 652.355 makes it an unlawful employment practice to fire or discriminate against an employee because he has “made a wage claim or discussed, inquired about[,] or consulted an attorney or agency about a wage claim.” The legislature defined “wage claim” in ORS 652.320(7) to mean “an employee’s claim against an employer for compensation for the employee’s own personal services, and includes any wages, compensation, damages or civil penalties provided by law to employee in connection with a claim for unpaid wages.”

Because this is a circular definition — a “wage claim” is “an employee’s claim”— and the Oregon legislature has not further defined “claim” in this context, we look to Webster’s, which defines the noun “claim” to mean “an authoritative or challenging request: demand....” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 414 (unabridged ed. 1986). It gives other meanings for “claim,” but neither the text nor context of the statute indicates that any meaning is more applicable than the ordinary one. Having examined the statute’s text and context, we find that the Oregon legislature intended “wage claim” in ORS 652.355 to mean a demand or request that an employee has against his employer for compensation due and owing for. the employee’s personal services.

Applying this definition to the facts of this case leads us to conclude that part of Brunozzi’s claim for retaliation under ORS 652.355 survives summary judgment. Brunozzi testified in deposition that he informed his supervisor that he was not working on Saturday, April 5, 2014, “Because I’m not being paid overtime, as far as I can tell.” He stated that “[o]n or about April 5, 2014, I objected to [CCI’s] failure to pay me my overtime wages, and I further notified [CCI] that I would not work additional overtime hours unless I was paid an overtime rate of pay.” And Bru-nozzi further stated that he made other complaints to his supervisors that he was not being paid overtime.

Brunozzi’s refusal to work additional overtime unless he was paid an overtime rate for those hours was a demand for future payment and does not qualify as a wage claim under Oregon law. See Perri, 66 P.3d at 538-40 & n.8 (concluding “that a wage claim for purposes of ORS 652.320(9) [renumbered to subsection (7) when the statute was amended in 2001] and ORS 652.355 must be either a claim for payment for services previously rendered or a claim for wages, compensation, damages, or civil penalties in connection with a claim for unpaid wages — that is, a claim for wages for services previously rendered”). But his complaints that CCI had failed to properly compensate him for overtime were at least discussions or inquiries about a demand for past-due wages if not the actual making of such a demand. These complaints were precursors to Brunozzi’s filing of a formal demand in court for past-due overtime wages, and they qualify for protection under ORS 652.355. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in CCI’s favor on Brunozzi’s ORS 652.355 claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      . The record does not reflect what work pieces the technicians performed or the values that CCI assigned to them.

      . McCormick’s agreement refers to "Commission Rate” jobs while Brunozzi’s refers to "Piece Rate” jobs. No party argues that there is a distinction in this difference.

      . The technicians claim that CCI’s formula for calculating their regular rate each week is (Piece Rate Total + Bonus)/total hours worked. They cite the district court’s orders for this proposition. But the district court was reciting how the regular rate is calculated under the federal regulations, not how it is calculated under CCI’s plan.

      .The district court dismissed this claim; Bru-nozzi does not challenge that dismissal in this appeal.

      . The formula provided in the agreement for calculating the bonus is more complicated— (70*(Piece Rate Total/60)) - Piece Rate OT Premium — but the parties agree in their supplemental briefs that it is correctly simplified as (l/6)*Piece Rate Total for weeks when no overtime is worked.

      . The regulations contained in part 778 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations "constitute [ ] the official interpretation of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of the maximum hours and overtime pay requirements contained in section 7 of the [FLSA].” 29 C.F.R. § 778.1.

      . HB 3162 Enrolled, Oregon Legislative Information, 2009 Regular Session (available at: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2009Rl/ Measures/Overview/HB3162).

      . Id.

      . Hearing on H.B. 3162 Before the House Committee on Business and Labor, First Public Hearing, 2009 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 1:22-1:40 (Or. Apr. 10, 2009) ("April 10 Hearing”) (statement from Rep. Judy Stiegler).

      . Id. at 1:40-2:13 (statement from Rep. Stiegler).

      . Hearing on H.B. 3162 A Before the Senate Committee on Commerce and Workforce Development, Public Hearing and Work Session, 2009 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 37:19-37:42 (Or. May 18, 2009) ("May 18 Hearing”) (statement from Rep. Stiegler).

      . April 10 Hearing at 39:49-40:49 (statement from Rep. Edwards); accord Hearing on H.B. 3162 A Before the Senate, Third Reading of House Measures, 2009 Leg., Reg. Sess. at 1:30:00-1:33:00 (May 28, 2009) ("May 28 Hearing”) (statement from Sen. Rosenbaum).

      . May 28 Hearing at 4:13-8:41; May 18 Hearing at 42:56-49:01.

      . April 10 Hearing at 9:15-17:23, 20:39-28:25; May 18 Hearing at 49:07-57:10.

      . We do not consider the legislative history for ORS 652.355 or 652.320 because no parly has proffered it.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc.; NBC Universal Media, LLC; Universal Network Television, LLC; Open 4 Business Productions, LLC; NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc; American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; ABC Holding Company, Inc.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; CBS Broadcasting Inc.; CBS Studios Inc.; Big Ticket Television, Inc.; Telemundo Network Group LLC; WNJU-TV Broadcasting LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AEREOKILLER, LLC; Alkiviades David; Filmon.tv Networks, Inc.; Filmon.tv, Inc.; Filmon.com, Inc.; Filmon X, LLC; Does, 1-3, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56420
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted August 4, 2016, Pasadena, California
    Filed March 21, 2017

      Neal Katyal, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Thomas P. Schmidt, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY; Matthew A. Shapiro and Frederick Liu, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC; Paul Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY; Richard L. Stone and Julie A. Shepard, Jenner & Block LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Ronald L. Johnston, John C. Ulin, James S. Blackburn, and Eric D. Mason, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA; and Robert Alan Garrett and Murad Hussain, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC.
    Ryan Geoffrey Baker, Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause and filed the brief for the defendants-ap-pellees. With him on the brief was Scott M. Malzahn, Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
    Duncan W. Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AF-TRA, Los Angeles, CA, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Screen Actors Guild-America Federation of Television and Radio Artists; Directors Guild of America, Inc.; and Writers Build of America, West, Inc., in support of the plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Danielle S. Van Lier, SAG-AFTRA, Los Angeles, CA; David B. Dreyfus, Directors Guild of America, Inc., Los Angeles, CA; and Anthony R. Segall, Writers Guild of America, West, Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
    Jay A. Rosenthal and J. Matthew Williams, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Washington, DC, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers; Broadcast Music, Inc.; The National Music Publishers’ Association; The Recording Industry Association of America; The Recording Academy; and SESAC, Inc. in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.

      Geoffrey Manne, International Center for Law and Economics, Portland, OR; and Hans Bader and Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae The Competitive Enterprise Institute and The International Center for Law and Economics in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
    Brandon Butler, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Consumer Federation of America in support of defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was Alexandra Wilson, Law Student, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC.
    Eleanor M. Lackman, Cowan, Debaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, New York, NY, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae The Copyright Alliance in support of the plaintiffs-appellants. With her on the brief was Keith Kupferschmid; Terry Hart and Terry Hart, Copyright Alliance, Washington, DC; and Nancy E. Wolff; Scott J. Sholder; and Marissa B. Lewis, Cowan, Debaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, New York, NY.
    Mitchell L. Stoltz, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA, and Phillip R. Malone; Jeffrey T. Pearlman; and Brian Quinn, Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and' Innovation Clinic, Stanford, CA, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge in support of the defendants-appellees.
    Rodney A. Smolla, Wilmington, DE, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae The Media Institute in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
    Rick Kaplan and Benjamin F. P. Ivins, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC; Joseph R. Palmore and James R. Sigel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC; and Paul Goldstein, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae National Association of Broadcasters in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
    Brandon Butler, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae National Federation of the blind in support of defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was Darlene Tzou, Law Student; Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, American , University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC.
    Anthony J. Dreyer; Jordan A. Feirman; and David M. Lamb, Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae National Football League; The Officers of the Commissioner of Baseball d/b/a Major League Baseball; and The PGA Tour, Inc. in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
    Susan Cleary, Vice President & General Counsel, Independent Film & Television Alliance, Los Angeles, CA, and Kelly M. Klaus and David J. Feder, Munger, Tolies & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Paramount Pictures Corporation; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; and Independent Film & Television Alliance in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
    Ralph Oman, Pravel Professorial Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Patent Law, George Washington University Law School, Former Register of Copyrights of the United States of America, Washington, DC, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae on his own behalf in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.

      Cory L. Andrews & Mark S. Chenoweth, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, filed a brief on behalf of Washington Legal Foundation in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
    Before: DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges-.
   OPINION

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the-Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is a “cable system” eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.

I

A

The Copyright Act of 1976 gives copyright holders six “exclusive rights,” including the exclusive right “to perform” copyrighted works “publicly.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). The Act provides that “[ajnyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer.” Id. § 501(a). This case concerns an important limitation on the Act’s provision for exclusive rights.

Under § 111 of the Act, a “cable system” is eligible for a so-called compulsory license that allows it to retransmit “a performance. or display of a work” that had originally been broadcast by someone else — even if such material is copyrighted — without having to secure the consent of the copyright holder. Id. § 111(c). So long as the cable system pays a statutory fee to the Copyright Office and complies with certain other regulations, it is protected from infringement liability. Id. § 111(c) — (d). Compulsory licenses are highly coveted, in no small part because, according to the Copyright Office, the royalty payments the Act requires cable companies to pay are “de minimis” when compared to the gross receipts and revenues the cable industry collects, a gap suggesting that the government-set rates fall well below market levels. U.S. Copyright Office, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act § 109 Report 43 (2008) (“SHVERA Report”); see also id. at 70.

This lawsuit pits a group of broadcast stations and copyright holders (collectively, “Fox”) against an entity now known as FilmOn X (“FilmOn”). FilmOn operates a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming, much of it copyrighted, and then uses the Internet to retransmit such programming to paying subscribers, all without the consent or authorization of the copyright holders. The Supreme Court recently held that such a service does “perform” the retransmitted works “publicly,” and hence infringes the copyright holders’ exclusive performance rights. American Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2498, 2503, 189 L.Ed.2d 476 (2014). Fox sued FilmOn for copyright infringement in 2012; in its most recent defense, FilmOn claims that it is a “cable system” eligible for a compulsory license under § 111.

The relevant provision of the Copyright Act defines “cable system” as follows:

A “cable system” is a facility, located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession of the United States, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. For purposes of determining the royalty fee under subsection (d)(1), two or more cable systems in contiguous communities under common ownership or control or operating from one headend shall be considered as one system.

17 U.S.C. § 111(f)(3). The parties offer dueling interpretations § 111, each grounded in various aspects of its text, its perceived purposes, and slices of its legislative history.

B

The district court granted partial summary judgment to FilmOn, agreeing with it that it qualified as a “cable system” and was therefore potentially entitled to a compulsory license. The district court based its conclusion on what it took to be the plain meaning of § 111, as well as the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision; which had analogized Internet-based retransmission services to cable companies in the course of deciding that Internet retransmissions count as “performances” under the Act’s Transmit Clause, 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Recognizing that its ruling “involve[s] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” however, the district court authorized an immediate appeal from its decision. We granted Fox’s petition for permission to appeal.

“We review de novo both the district court’s grant of summary judgment and its holdings on questions of statutory interpretation.” Phoenix Mem’l Hosp. v. Sebelius, 622 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). But before turning to the parties’ interpretations of § 111, it is crucial to point out that we do not confront § Ill’s compulsory licensing scheme on a blank slate, because there is an agency interpretation in the background. The Copyright Office — the agency charged with implementing the Copyright Act — has for many years maintained that Internet-based retransmission services are not “cable systems” and hence are not eligible for compulsory licenses under § 111. Thus, when FilmOn attempted to pay the government-prescribed fee for retransmitting copyrighted broadcast programming, the Office refused to accept FilmOn’s filings, citing its position that Internet-based retransmission services are not covered by § 111.

Fox and FilmOn each claim that the plain meaning of § 111 resolves this case in its favor. We will first discuss Fox’s interpretation, then FilmOn’s, and only then — if we conclude that the meaning of § 111 is ambiguous on the question presented — will we consider the views of the Copyright Office.

Ill

A

Fox maintains that § Ill’s “plain text makes clear that the relevant ‘facility’ corn-prises the entire retransmission service— both the service’s means of receiving broadcast signals and its means of making secondary transmissions to the paying subscribers.” The Copyright Office has not endorsed this interpretation. Nevertheless, under Fox’s reading, FilmOn would necessarily be excluded from § Ill’s definition of “cable system” because FilmOn retransmits broadcast signals over the Internet, and yet the Internet “is in no sense under [its] ownership or control.” Indeed, FilmOn concedes that it “uses a communications channel beyond its facility” to make secondary transmissions. “That concession,” says Fox, “should decide this case.”

Fox’s theory is not implausible. As Fox points out, and as FilmOn does not dispute, “[a] traditional cable system is a ‘facility’ in this sense: It ... retransmits [broadcast] signals directly to its subscribers over a transmission path fully within its control.” Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the statute compels the conclusion that to qualify as a “cable system,” a retransmission service must encompass or have control over the means it uses to transmit material to paying subscribers.

The most important difficulty with Fox’s interpretation is that it finds insufficient support in the text of the statute. Recall the relevant language: to be a “cable system,” a facility must “make[] secondary transmissions of [broadcast] signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels.” 17 U.S.C. § 111(f)(3) (emphasis added). Nothing in that language on its face compels the conclusion that the facility must control the retransmission medium — the wires, cables, microwaves, or other communications channels — that it relies on to deliver its retransmissions. Fox does not cite any specialized or technical meaning, and as a matter of ordinary interpretation, the text could certainly be read the other way. Cf Black’s Law Dictionary 182 (5th ed. 1979) (defining “by” as “[t]hrough the means, act, agency, or instrumentality of’). For instance, someone who deposits a letter in a mailbox could certainly be said to “transmit” his letter “by mail,” even though he does not control the mail system that actually delivers his letter to its recipient. Likewise, it would be reasonable to say that someone “makes a transmission” of money “by wire” when he initiates an electronic funds transfer through Western Union, even though he does not have any possession or control over the wires that transport his money to its destination. (Indeed, the British soldiers Paul Revere warned of were certainly making their advance “by sea,” even though they in no sense controlled the Charles River. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, The Landlord’s Tale: Paul Revere’s Ride, reprinted in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: Poems and Other Writings 362, 362 (J.D. McClatchy ed., 2000).).

In addition, § 111(a)(3) specifically discusses a scenario in which one entity selects the content or recipients of a secondary transmission, while a different entity supplies the communications channel. According to that provision, a “carrier” who “provid[es] wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of others” is not liable for copyright infringement, while the upstream entity who exercises “control over the content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission” may be hable. 17 U.S.C. § 111(a)(3). Section 111(a)(3), therefore, suggests that a facility may be said to make secondary transmissions even if it does not exercise ownership or control over the communications channel it uses. If that is true, then FilmOn’s lack of ownership or control over the Internet does not necessarily exclude it from the class of facilities that “make[ ] secondary transmissions ... by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels.” Id. § 111(f)(3).

B

Although Fox’s plain-meaning construction has not convinced us, Fox can prevail if we defer to the views of the Copyright Office. FilmOn urges us not to do so because, FilmOn insists, the plain meaning of § 111 supports its position. FilmOn strives mightily to demonstrate that the plain meaning of § 111 unambiguously entitles it to a compulsory license.

FilmOn first argues that § 111 “should be interpreted in a technology agnostic manner.” FilmOn would have us read § 111 as making compulsory licenses available to any facility that retransmits broadcast signals or programming, no matter its technological features or characteristics. That position is a poor fit with § Ill’s text and structure. First of all, if Congress had intended § 111 to service the entire secondary transmission community, doling out statutory licenses without regard to the technological makeup of its members, it would have been easy enough for Congress to say so (and in fact, Congress came very close to doing just that in the Transmit Clause, 17 U.S.C. § 101, as we discuss in the next paragraph). Instead, Congress specified that § 111 applies only to “cable systems,” and it defined “cable system” in a detailed, if arguably ambiguous, way. Second, and relatedly, if Congress meant § 111 to sweep in secondary transmission services with indifference to their technological profile, then it was strange for Congress to have provided separate compulsory license provisions — §§ 119 and 122 — for broadcast retransmissions by satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. §§ 119, 122. The way to prevent discrimination on the basis of technology, one might say, is to stop discriminating on the basis of technology. Congress chose a different course.

Undeterred, FilmOn relies on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Aereo, which, FilmOn insists, “recognized section Ill’s technology agnosticism.” But Aereo did nothing of the sort. Aereo dealt with an altogether different provision of the Copyright Act, the Transmit Clause, which defines the scope of a copyright holder’s exclusive right by delineating the class of activities that count as public performances and hence infringe such right. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. Significantly, the Transmit Clause refers in sweeping terms to transmissions or communications made “by means of any device or process,” and broadly defined “device” and “process” to mean “one now known or later developed.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). The glaring textual differences between § 101 and § 111 render the Aereo decision of very little help to FilmOn’s plain-meaning argument. Moreover, it would be perfectly coherent to pair a broad reading of the Transmit Clause with a narrow reading of the compulsory license provision, insofar as both such readings would work in tandem to bolster the property interests of copyright holders. Nothing in § 111 or Aereo makes such a reading unreasonable.

We also cannot accept FilmOn’s assertion that it clearly satisfies § Ill’s requirement that a cable system make secondary transmissions by “wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels.” 17 U.S.C. § 111(f)(3) (emphasis added). It is far from clear whether the Internet counts as one of the “other communications channels” envisioned by § 111. For instance, Fox’s expert explained that “a communications channel, in electrical engineering terms has the characteristics set forth by Claude Shannon in his seminal paper, ‘Communication In The Presence of Noise.’ The defining characteristics of a communications channel are bandwidth, noise and throughput. The Internet is not a communications channel.”

Moreover, it would be perfectly reasonable to interpret “other communications channels” according to the ejusdem generis canon, which instructs that “when a statute sets out a series of specific items ending with a general term, that general term is confined to covering subjects comparable to the specifics it follows.” Hall St. Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 586, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). Invoking such canon, one could reasonably conclude that the “other communications channels” must share characteristics such as bandwidth, throughput, and noise; alternatively, one could conclude, as the Copyright Office does, that such channels must be “inherently localized transmission media of limited availability.” Either interpretation would imply that the Internet is not an “other communications channel” under § 111. We cannot conclude that § 111 unambiguously requires otherwise.

Nor can we conclude that the Copyright Act’s broad purposes compel the conclusion that Internet-based retransmission services are eligible for compulsory licenses under § 111. Rather, we see powerful arguments that such a reading could very well undermine the balance of interests Congress attempted to strike when it designed § 111. That is especially so when § 111 is viewed in the context of its enactment.

In brief, when Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976, it overturned two earlier Supreme Court decisions which had held that cable systems were not liable for copyright infringement on the theory that they did not actually “perform” the works they retransmitted at all. Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 415 U.S. 394, 408, 94 S.Ct. 1129, 39 L.Ed.2d 415 (1974); Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, 392 U.S. 390, 399, 88 S.Ct. 2084, 20 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1968). Congress therefore acted to restore a measure of protection to copyright owners. At the same time, however, Congress recognized that cable systems served an important public good, by enabling geographically distant and isolated communities to receive over-the-air broadcasts that would otherwise not reach them. But in 1976 the cable industry was a fledgling one; cable systems had little market power and little ability to overcome the considerable transaction costs they would incur if they had to negotiate individual licenses directly with copyright owners. Congress responded to these economic conditions by enacting § 111, which relieved cable systems of the need to sit down with every copyright holder before retransmitting their copyrighted broadcast works. Section 111 also helped protect the infrastructure investments cable systems have undertaken in the years prior to the Act. And the broadcast companies and copyright owners ben-efitted to some extent as well, insofar as they could now reach viewers they would not otherwise have been able to access. Fundamentally, however, § 111 was Congress’s attempt to balance the socially useful role cable systems had come to play, on the one hand, against the property interests and creative incentives of copyright holders, on the other.

One could reasonably conclude that extending § 111 to Internet-based retransmission services would not further, and might in fact jeopardize, the values just described. For one, cable systems serve limited geographic communities, but an Internet-based service has no geographic boundary — it can retransmit works across the globe instantaneously — meaning that Internet-based retransmission poses á more serious threat to the value and integrity of copyrighted works. Such threat is exacerbated insofar as Internet retransmissions are more vulnerable than traditional cable to unauthorized copying and other acts of piracy. For another, many copyright owners are capable of transmitting their works over the Internet on their own; they do not need to rely on third parties to do so, as they had to. rely on cable companies if they wanted to reach the isolated, distant communities cable systems' traditionally served. Relatedly, compared to cable systems and satellite carriers, Internet-based retransmission services have not needed to make the same sort of investments in a delivery platform' infrastructure. Finally, there is no evidence that Internet-based services lack market power or face prohibitive transaction costs of the sort that justified the compulsory license for cable systems.

To be sure, we agree with FilmOn that there are important values on its side of the equation as well. Still, our conclusion from this discussion is a predictable one: the array of competing interests at stake does not unambiguously counsel for or against a broad reading of § 111.

Additionally, throughout its brief Fil-mOn invokes the statute’s legislative history. Unsurprisingly, however, there is plenty of legislative history to go around, as Fox and the Copyright Office make extensive use of it as well. At best, we think the legislative history is a wash; it certainly does not compel the conclusion that § 111 must be interpreted to be “technology agnostic,” or that Internet-based retransmission services must be deemed “cable systems.” To the extent the legislative history provides relevant evidence of § Ill’s meaning, we would defer to the Copyright Office’s interpretation of it, seeing as the Copyright Office has a much more intimate relationship with Congress and is institutionally better equipped than we are to sift through and to make sense of the vast and heterogeneous expanse that is the Act’s legislative history.

Finally, we note two additional reasons to reject FilmOn’s argument that § 111 must be read to encompass Internet-based retransmission services.

As courts have explained in the past, compulsory licenses represent a “limited exception to the copyright holder’s exclusive right to decide who shall make use of his [work],” and courts should not “expand the scope of the compulsory license provision beyond what Congress intended ... nor interpret it in such a way as to frustrate that purpose.” Fame Publishing Co. v. Ala. Custom Tape, Inc., 507 F.2d 667, 670 (5th Cir. 1975). Such canon supports a narrow construction of § 111.

Additionally, as Fox points out, interpreting § 111 so as to include Internet-based retransmission services would risk putting the United States in violation of certain of its treaty obligations. An age-old canon of construction instructs that “an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.” Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804). FilmOn does not have a satisfactory answer to this argument.

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot accept FilmOn’s argument that § 111 must be read in such a way as to make Internet-based retransmission services eligible for compulsory licenses. All of that being said, however, we would not go so far as to conclude that it would be clearly impermissible to say that FilmOn qualifies for a compulsory license under § 111. The text of § 111 is written in broad terms, and both sides can make plausible arguments about the statute’s purposes and legislative history. Hence, although we do not believe the interpretive scales are in equipoise, we do not foreclose the possibility that the statute could reasonably be read to include Internet-based retransmission services.

IV

Because the statute does not speak clearly to the precise question before us, we must decide how much weight to give the views of the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office has published its views on the meaning of § 111 through a few different channels. We group them into two broad categories.

First, in 1992 and again in 1997 the Office engaged in notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to decide whether burgeoning retransmission technologies— specifically, satellite and microwave retransmission systems — could be classified as “cable systems” under § 111. The 1992 and 1997 rulemakings did not purport to consider Internet-based retransmission services. In the final rules’ preambles, however, the Office stated broadly “that a provider of broadcast signals [must] be an inherently localized transmission media of limited availability to qualify as a cable system.” Cable Compulsory Licenses: Definition of Cable Systems, 62 Fed. Reg. 18,705-02, 18,707 (April 17, 1997) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 201); see also Cable Compulsory License; Definition of Cable System, 57 Fed. Reg. 3284-01, 3292 (Jan. 29, 1992) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 201) (“Examination of the overall operation of section 111 proves that the compulsory license applies only to localized retransmission services.”). Everyone acknowledges that the foregoing interpretation of “cable system” would rule out Internet-based retransmission services like FilmOn. But the parties disagree sharply about whether such interpretation should have any bearing on our analysis.

That brings us to the second batch of Copyright Office interpretations relevant to this litigation. Since 1997, the Office has on at least four occasions specifically and unequivocally said that, in its view, Internet-based retransmission services are not “cable systems” under § 111, but it has not done so in connection with any rule-making. Instead, the Office has communicated its position largely through official reports and testimony before Congress.

A

The first question is whether Chevron or Skidmore provides the proper framework to structure our analysis. The parties debate this issue at length. It has divided our colleagues as well: while the Second Circuit said Chevron deference is appropriate, ivi II, 691 F.3d at 279, district courts in the Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia, and the Northern District of Illinois all applied the less deferential Skidmore framework instead, ivi I, 765 F.Supp.2d at 604-05; Fox Television Stations, 150 F.Supp.3d at 27; Window to the World Commc’ns, 2016 WL 1161276, at *12. Notably, each of the courts applying Skidmore had no trouble accepting the Office’s position when all was said and done.

To resolve this issue, we would be required to rule on constitutional questions that could have outsized consequences relative to this case — such as determining whether the Library of Congress is a legislative or executive agency. However, it is clear the Copyright Office is entitled to at least Skidmore deference. E.g., Alaska Stock, LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Pub. Co., 747 F.3d 673, 684-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e defer to the Copyright Office’s views ... to the extent that those interpretations have the power to persuade.”). And, whether Chevron or Skid-more applies ultimately does not affect the conclusion we reach. We therefore adhere to the “well established principle ... [that] the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case” and will proceed under the Skidmore framework. See Bond v. U.S., - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 2087, 189 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014) (citing Escambia County v. McMillan, 466 U.S. 48, 51, 104 S.Ct. 1577, 80 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984) (per curiam)).

B

Under Skidmore, and having already determined that the meaning of § 111 is ambiguous on the precise question before us, we must now ask whether the Copyright Office’s interpretation is persuasive and reasonable. To do so we review “the thoroughness evident in its consideration, .the validity of its reasoning, [and] its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements.” U.S. v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 228, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (citing Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161).

First, the Office’s decision to reject Internet-based retransmission services because they do not use a localized retransmission medium finds sufficient support in the text, structure, and basic purposes of .the Copyright Act. Such interpretation aligns with § Ill’s many instances of location-sensitive language, including “headends,” 17 U.S.C. § 111(f)(3), “contiguous communities,” id. and “distant signal equivalent,” id. §§ 111(d)(1)(B)-(C), (d)(1)(E)-(F), (f)(5). As the Office points out — and as FilmOn does not dispute— such references “would have no meaning when applied to ... nationwide retransmission facilities.” 56 Fed. Reg. at 31,588. Nor does FilmOn dispute the Office’s claim that “at the time Congress created the cable compulsory license, the FCC regulated the cable industry as a highly localized medium of limited availability, suggesting that Congress, cognizant of the FCC’s regulations and the market realities, fashioned a compulsory license with a local rather than a national scope.” 62 Fed. Reg. at 18,707.

Furthermore, confining “cable systems” to localized retransmission media is a sensible way to construe the phrase “other communications channels” so that it does not sweep in every possible retransmission technology. The Office’s position is not rigidly originalist, as its ability to accommodate Satellite Master Antenna Television systems demonstrates. Rather, it is a plausible attempt to maintain the balance Congress struck between the public’s interest in ever-improved access to broadcast television and the property rights of copyright holders. “The interpretation makes considerable sense in terms of the statute’s basic objectives,” Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 219, 122 S.Ct. 1265, as well as its text.

The Office has maintained a consistent position on this issue since it first expressed its views in 1992. 57 Fed. Reg. at 3292; 62 Fed. Reg. at 18,707. In articulating its position the agency has consistently referenced the statute’s text, structure, and legislative history. E.g., 57 Fed. Reg. at 3292; see also id. at 3290 (endorsing the view that “the terms of section 111, when considered as a whole, make it obvious that the license is directed to localized transmission services,” and that § 111 “do[es] not have any application to a nationwide retransmission service such as satellite carriers.”). Since 1997, the Office has on at least four occasions explicitly concluded that Internet-based retransmission services are not “cable systems” under § 111.

Lest there be any doubt, we note that for years Congress has indisputably been aware of the Office’s position that Internet-based services are ineligible under § 111, and yet “Congress has frequently amended or reenacted the relevant provisions without change.” Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 220, 122 S.Ct. 1265. As the district court for the District of Columbia recounted:

Congress has been fully aware of the Copyright Office’s longstanding interpretation. Despite this awareness, Congress has neither amended the text of § 111 nor enacted a separate compulsory-licensing scheme to include Internet-based retransmission services. However, Congress has repeatedly amended the statute in other respects. For example, it amended the cable system definition to include the term ‘microwave’ and enacted the licensing scheme for satellite providers. As recently as 2014, ... Congress amended the Copyright Act without rejecting or altering the Copyright Office’s interpretation.

Fox Television Stations, 150 F.Supp.3d at 26-27 (internal citations omitted); see also ivi I, 765 F.Supp.2d at 616 (same). “These circumstances provide further evidence — if more is needed — that Congress intended the Agency’s interpretation, or at least understood the interpretation as statutorily permissible.” Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 220, 122 S.Ct. 1265; see also Greenhorn Farms v. Espy, 39 F.3d 963, 965 (9th Cir. 1994).

The Office’s position is longstanding, consistently held, and was arrived at after careful consideration; and it addresses a complex question important to the administration of the Copyright Act. Not only that, but Congress has effectively acquiesced in it. We are persuaded that all of this more than suffices under Skidmore. See Mead, 533 U.S. at 228, 121 S.Ct. 2164.

V

FilmOn and other Internet-based retransmission services are neither clearly eligible nor clearly ineligible for the compulsory license § 111 makes available to “cable, systems.” The Copyright Office says they are not eligible. Because the Office’s views are persuasive, and because they are reasonable, we defer to them. The judgment of the district court is therefore

REVERSED.

      . As of this writing, at least seven federal courts have weighed in on whether Internet-based retransmission services count as "cable systems” under § 111. The district court here is the only one to conclude that they do. A panel of the Second Circuit unanimously said no. WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F.3d 275, 276 (2d Cir. 2012) (ivi II). So have five district courts: three in the Southern District of New York, one in the District for the District of Columbia, and one in the Northern District of Illinois. WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 594, 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (ivi I); Fox. Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC, 150 F.Supp.3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2015); Filmon X, LLC v. Window to the World Commc’ns, Inc., No. 13 C 8451, 2016 WL 1161276, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2016); CBS Broad. Inc. v. FilmOn.com, Inc., No. 10 CIV. 7532 NRB, 2014 WL 3702568, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2014); Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 12-CV-1540, 2014 WL 5393867, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2014).

      . Strikingly, FilmOn also relies on the work of Claude Shannon, but offers its own more favorable, but still highly technical, interpretation of "communications channel.” Far from illuminating § Ill’s plain meaning, however, FilmOn’s decision to serve up a rival technical definition suggests that this is an issue better left to an expert agency than a-federal court.

      . Under Chevron, "[w]hen a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions.” Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). First, we must determine ‘‘whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. We have already concluded that Congress has not done so. Our second question then becomes merely ‘‘whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778.
      The Skidmore framework is less deferential. Under Skidmore, the weight we give to an agency interpretation "will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” Skidmore v. Swift

        & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944).

      . The Copyright Office is housed within the Library of Congress, and it is not clear whether the Library of Congress is part of the executive or legislative branch. Compare U.S. v. Brooks, 945 F.Supp. 830, 834 (E.D. Pa. 1996) ("[T]he Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch.”), with Intercollegiate Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 684 F.3d 1332, 1341-42 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (discussing why the Library of Congress "is undoubtedly a ‘component of the Executive Branch' ”). If the Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch, then the Librarian's “power to appoint all of the officers who execute the copyright laws” may run afoul of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. See John Duffy et al., Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon, Concurring Opinions (May 17, 2013), https://concurringopinions.com/ archives/2013/05/copyrights-constitutional-chámeleon.html#more-74811.

      . Similarly, when the Office denied satellite carriers a § 111 license on grounds that they do not use a localized retransmission medium, Congress responded by enacting a new compulsory license provision in § 119. By contrast, when the Office denied Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS”) a § 111 license — even though MMDS comports with the localized-retransmission requirement, see 57 Fed. Reg. at 3293-94 — Congress responded by amending § 111. Such differential treatment maps onto the Office's view that § 111 embraces only those retransmission services that utilize inherently localized media.