1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:5448 1 Ryan G. Baker (Bar No. 214036) Peter Stris (Bar No. 216226) 2 [email protected] [email protected] Jaime Marquart (Bar No. 200344) Brendan Maher (Bar No. 217043) 3 [email protected] [email protected] Scott M. Malzahn (Bar No. 229204) Elizabeth Brannen (Bar No. 226234) 4 [email protected] Brian T. Grace (Bar No. 307826) [email protected] 5 [email protected] Daniel Geyser (Bar No. 230405) BAKER MARQUART LLP [email protected] 6 2029 Century Park East, Sixteenth Fl. STRIS & MAHER LLP Los Angeles, California 90067 725 S. Figueroa St, Suite 1830 7 Telephone: (424) 652-7800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Facsimile: (424) 652-7850 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 8 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 9 David Quinto (Bar No. 106232) [email protected] 10 VIDANGEL, INC. 3007 Franklin Canyon Drive 11 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-1633 Telephone: (213) 604-1777 12 Attorneys for Defendant and 13 Counterclaimant VidAngel, Inc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 WESTERN DIVISION 17 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; Case No. 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA LUCASFILM LTD. LLC; 18 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM VIDANGEL’S NOTICE OF CORPORATION; AND WARNER MOTION AND MOTION TO 19 BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., CLARIFY OR CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 20 Plaintiffs, ORDER (DKT. 144) 21 vs. The Hon. André Birotte Jr. 22 VIDANGEL, INC., Date: July 17, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. 23 Defendant. Courtroom: 7B 24 Trial Date: None Set 25 26 27 28 VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:5449 1 VIDANGEL, INC., 2 Counterclaimant, 3 vs. 4 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; 5 LUCASFILM LTD. LLC; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM 6 CORPORATION; WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND 7 DOES 1-100, 8 Counterclaim-Defendants. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:5450 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) 2 3 I. Preliminary Statement……………………………………………………….1 4 II. Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………3 5 A. The Preliminary Injunction……………………………………….…….3 6 B. VidAngel’s New Technology…………………………………………..4 7 C. Plaintiffs Have Acknowledged That Lawful Filtering 8 of Streaming Content Is Permitted…………………………...…………8 9 D. VidAngel’s New Technology Is Similar to Existing 10 Proxy Streaming Services………………………………………………9 11 III. Argument…………………………………………………………………….11 12 A. The Court May Clarify or Construct the Scope of the 13 Preliminary Injunction While the Appeal Is Pending…………………11 14 B. VidAngel’s New Technology Complies with the DMCA…………….12 15 C. Although VidAngel’s New Technology Does Involve 16 Some Copying, That Copying Is Fair Use…………………………….12 17 1. Purpose………………………………………………………….13 18 2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work……………………………….15 19 3. Amount and Substantiality of Copying…………………………16 20 4. Market Effect…………………………………………………...18 21 D. VidAngel’s New Technology Does Not Infringe 22 Performance Rights……………………………………………………19 23 E. VidAngel’s New Technology Complies with the FMA……………….20 24 F. VidAngel’s New Technology Complies with the 25 Purpose of the Preliminary Injunction…………………………………20 26 G. The Requested Clarification Will Benefit the Parties…………………23 27 IV. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...23 28 VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR i CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:5451 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Federal Cases 4 Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 5 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014)..................................................................................... 19, 22 6 Blanch v. Koons, 7 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. 18 8 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 9 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ........................................................................................ 13, 16 10 Daniels Health Scis., LLC. v. Vascular Health Scis., LLC, 710 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 12 11 12 Elvis Presley Enters. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 16 13 Matter of Hendrix, 14 986 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 12 15 Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local No. 888, 16 536 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................... 11 17 Jake’s, Ltd. v. City of Coates, 18 356 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 22 19 Lara v. Sec’y of Interior, 20 820 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................... 11 21 McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 22 336 U.S. 187 (1949) .............................................................................................. 11 23 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F.Supp.2d 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................... 22 24 25 Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning, LLC, 386 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 22 26 NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst., 27 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 18 28 VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR ii CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:5452 1 Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9 (1945) .................................................................................................. 11 2 3 Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Aisen, No. 15-CV-1766 2016 WL 4681177 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016) ............................ 11 4 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 5 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ........................................................................................ 13, 17 6 Swift & Co. v. United States, 7 196 U.S. 375 (1905) .............................................................................................. 22 8 Federal Statutes 9 17 U.S.C. § 106 ............................................................................................................. 4 10 17 U.S.C. § 107 ......................................................................................... 12, 13, 16, 22 11 12 17 U.S.C. § 107(3) ...................................................................................................... 16 13 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) ...................................................................................................... 17 14 17 U.S.C. § 110(11) .................................................................................... 1, 14, 20, 22 15 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) ...................................................................................................... 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR iii CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:5453 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 17, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon 3 thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable André Birotte Jr., in 4 Courtroom 7B of the United States District Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Los 5 Angeles, California 90012, Defendant and Counterclaimant VidAngel, Inc. 6 (“VidAngel”) will and hereby does respectfully move for an order: (1) clarifying or 7 constructing the Court’s December 12, 2016 order granting a preliminary injunction 8 (the “Order”), and (2) declaring that VidAngel’s proposed course of conduct will not 9 violate the preliminary injunction. 10 This motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 11 Authorities, the Declaration of David Quinto dated June 19, 2017, the exhibits 12 thereto, the proposed order submitted concurrently herewith, and any other evidence 13 and argument as may be presented in reply or at oral argument. 14 15 16 17 DATED: June 19, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 By: /s/ Jaime W. Marquart Jaime W. Marquart 20 BAKER MARQUART LLP 2029 Century Park East, Sixteenth Floor 21 Los Angeles, California 90067 22 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant VidAngel, Inc. 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR 1 CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 182 Filed 06/19/17 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:5454 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. Preliminary Statement 3 VidAngel’s mission is to offer families a viable way to filter unwanted content 4 out of popular television shows and movies in the digital streaming age, just as 5 Congress intended when it enacted the Family Movie Act. VidAngel maintains that 6 Plaintiffs are diametrically opposed to that mission and that this lawsuit is a ruse to 7 defeat a legitimate filtering service. Plaintiffs contend they do not oppose filtering, 8 but that VidAngel’s service threatens them with economic and irreparable harm. 9 Specifically, Plaintiffs allege they are harmed because VidAngel: (i) streams content 10 to consumers without paying for a streaming license1; (ii) occasionally offers filtered 11 content