The website launched quietly on November 30, 1999, but grew rapidly; in December 2000 it had 800,000 unique visits and played 60 million instances of users being exposed to 30 second advertisements.

Despite this argument, based on the precedent set in Williams Elecs., Inc. v. Attic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 878 [215 USPQ 405] (3d Cir.1982) injunctions may be issued without proving willful or deliberate infringement.

[5] Public performance was proven by an examination of the Real Video server log showing that 45% of iCraveTV's traffic came from IP addresses within the United States.

iCraveTV was found to be in violation of the Lanham Act by portraying itself as legitimate telecasters endorsed by the plaintiffs, and falsely stating that they owned copyrights on the streamed content.

[2] Under the common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, iCraveTV was also found to have participated in unfair competition and civil conspiracy that would irreparably harm the plaintiffs without an injunction.

Rather than returning to court as dictated by the preliminary injunction ruling, iCraveTV and representatives of the motion picture, television, and professional sports industries came to an out-of-court settlement agreement.

In September 2010, Seattle-based company ivi launched a similar service as iCraveTV for watching television online at a flat monthly fee.

[10] In September 2013, graduate student Benjamin Klass filed a net neutrality complaint against Bell Mobility with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for its treatment of online video services.