Concerns About “Technical Deficiencies and Concerns About Their Constitutionality,” As Well As the Competing Economic Interests of Affected Groups
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 16- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, CAROLINE RECORDS, INC., VIR- GIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC, INC., EMI APRIL MUSIC, INC., EMI VIRGIN MUSIC, INC., COLGEMS-EMI MUSIC, INC., EMI VIRGIN SONGS, INC., EMI GOLD HORIZON MUSIC CORP., EMI UNART CATA- LOG, INC., STONE DIAMOND MUSIC CORPORATION, EMI U CATALOG, INC., JOBETE MUSIC CO., INC., Petitioners, v. VIMEO, LLC, CONNECTED VENTURES, LLC, DOES, 1-20 INCLUSIVE, Respondents. ___________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ___________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ___________ RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN CARTER G. PHILLIPS * MARC E. MAYER KWAKU A. AKOWUAH MITCHELL SILBERBERG & REBECCA S. LEVENSON KNUPP LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 11377 West Olympic 1501 K Street, N.W. Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (202) 736-8000 (310) 312-2000 [email protected] CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 853-7000 Counsel for Petitioners December 14, 2016 * Counsel of Record QUESTION PRESENTED Section 301(c) of the Copyright Act states that “[w]ith respect to sound recordings fixed before Feb- ruary 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be an- nulled or limited [by the Copyright Act] until Febru- ary 15, 2067.” The question presented is whether the Second Cir- cuit erred in holding, contrary to the considered view of the United States Copyright Office and in conflict with New York state appellate courts, that when Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and added section 512 to the Copyright Act, it implicitly limited and preempted the very state-law rights and remedies that section 301(c) says “shall not be annulled or limited.” (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS The petitioners herein, plaintiffs/appellees-cross- appellants below, are Capitol Records, LLC, Caroline Records, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc., EMI Blackwood Music, Inc., EMI April Music, Inc., EMI Virgin Music, Inc., Colgems-EMI Music, Inc., EMI Virgin Songs, Inc., EMI Gold Horizon Music Corp., EMI Unart Catalog, Inc., Stone Diamond Music Cor- poration, EMI U Catalog, Inc., and Jobete Music Co., Inc. The respondents herein, defendants/appellants- cross-appellees below, are Vimeo, LLC, Connected Ventures, LLC, and Does 1-20 inclusive. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO RULE 29.6 Petitioners Caroline Records, Inc. and Virgin Rec- ords America, Inc. have merged into Petitioner Capi- tol Records, LLC, a Delaware limited liability compa- ny. Capitol Records, LLC’s parent companies include Virgin Records CM Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corpo- ration; EMI RM US, Inc., a Delaware corporation; EMI Group Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Univer- sal Music Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The ultimate parent of Capitol Records, LLC is Vivendi, S.A., a publicly traded French corporation. Petitioners EMI Blackwood Music, Inc., EMI April Music, Inc., EMI Virgin Music, Inc., Colgems-EMI Music, Inc., EMI Virgin Songs, Inc., EMI Gold Hori- zon Music Corp., EMI U Catalog, Inc., EMI Unart Catalog Inc., Jobete Music Co., Inc., and Stone Dia- mond Music Corporation are all partially owned, in- direct subsidiaries of Sony Corporation, a publicly- traded company organized under the laws of Japan. No publicly traded company other than Sony Corpo- ration owns more than 10% of their stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO RULE 29.6 ......................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. vii OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................. 6 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 17 I. THE DECISION BELOW CREATES A DIRECT AND INTOLERABLE SPLIT BETWEEN THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND THE STATE COURTS OF NEW YORK ...... 17 II. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS CRITI- CALLY IMPORTANT TO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY AND TO HOLDERS OF RIGHTS IN PRE-1972 SOUND RECORD- INGS .............................................................. 20 III. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S CONCLUSION IS PLAINLY INCORRECT AND CON- FLICTS IN SEVERAL RESPECTS WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT .................... 23 A. The Second Circuit’s Construction Of Section 301(c) Is Untenable ...................... 24 B. The Second Circuit’s Construction Of Section 512 Is Untenable .......................... 27 (v) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—continued Page C. The Second Circuit’s Policy Analysis Does Not Withstand Scrutiny .................. 31 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 33 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2016) ........................ 1a APPENDIX B: Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 972 F. Supp. 2d 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ....... 41a APPENDIX C: Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 972 F. Supp. 2d 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ....... 74a APPENDIX D: Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, Nos. 14-1048 et al. (2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2016) ................................................................... 145a APPENDIX E: Federal Statutes ......................... 148a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014) .......................................................... 5, 25 Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ......... 13 Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc., 372 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) ....................... 23 Capitol Records, LLC v. BlueBeat, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ............. 23 Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) ........................................... 25 EMI Christian Music Grp., Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 840 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 13 Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 13-5693, 2014 WL 4725382 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2014) ............................................ 22 Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968), superseded on other grounds by statute, Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94- 553, 90 Stat. 2541, as recognized in Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) ...................................... 5, 28, 29 Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) .......................................................... 9, 25 J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001) ............................ 27 Lovilia Coal Co. v. Williams, 143 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 1998) ............................................ 25 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007) ................................................... 4, 10 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) ................. 26 People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476 (2005) .......... 19 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued Page Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522 (1987) .......................................................... 33 Sheridan v. Sirius Xm Radio, Inc., No. 15- 7576, 2016 WL 1060361 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2016) ........................................................... 22 Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974), superseded on other grounds by statute, Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541, as recognized in Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) ........................................... 5, 28 TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) .................. 26 U.S. Dep’t of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993) ................................................... 2, 25 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Grp., Inc, 107 A.D.3d 51 (2013) ............. passim STATUTES Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, 4 Stat. 436 ......... 3 Act of Mar. 3, 1865, ch. 126, 13 Stat. 540 ..... 3 Sound Recording Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971) ................. 3, 9 Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 .............................................. 10 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998) .......................................................... 10 17 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................... 11, 21, 29 § 106 ............................................. 11, 21 § 107 .............................................. 30 § 108(a) .......................................... 30 § 111(a) .......................................... 30 § 112(a)(1) ..................................... 30 § 121 .............................................. 30 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued Page 17 U.S.C. § 301 .......................................... passim § 501(a) .......................................... 28 § 502 .............................................. 22 § 504 .............................................. 22 § 505 .............................................. 22 § 512 ................................. 11, 12, 27, 29 § 912(d) .......................................... 31 § 1101(d) ........................................ 31 § 1201 ............................................ 21 § 1202 ............................................ 21 § 1330(1) ........................................ 31 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ............................................ 15 LEGISLATIVE