Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C. in The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C. ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-2009 Distribution of the 2004, 2005, 2006 ) (Phase II) 2007, 2008 and 2009 ) Cable Royalty Funds ) ) ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 Distribution of the 1999-2009 ) (Phase II) Satellite Royalty Funds ) ) WRITTEN REBUTTAL STATEMENT REGARDING CLAIMS ISSUES OF THE MPAA-REPRESENTED PROGRAM SUPPLIERS VOLUME I OF II WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND EVIDENCE Gregory O. Olaniran D.C. Bar No. 455784 Lucy Holmes Plovnick D.C. Bar No. 488752 Kimberly P. Nguyen D.C. Bar No. 996237 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 (202) 355-7917 (Telephone) (202) 355-7887 (Facsimile) [email protected] [email protected] A ttorneys for MPAA-Represented Program Suppliers Dated: October 15, 2014 REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION WRITTEN REBUTTAL STATEMENT REGARDING CLAIMS ISSUES OF THE MPAA-REPRESENTED PROGRAM SUPPLIERS TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Page MPAA’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS REGARDING CLAIMS MADE BY IPG INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINATION OF VALID CLAIMS ...................... 6 Ill. BURDEN OF PROOF AND EVIDENTIARY PRESUMPTIONS ................................. 10 Ao IPG Intentionally Misled The Judges As To Who It Was Authorized To Represent In A Hearing Concerning The Distribution Of The 2004-2009 Cable And 2004-2009 Satellite Royalty Years ..................................................... 11 No In This Proceeding, IPG Has Included Numerous Entities On Its Petitions To Participate And In Its Written Direct Statements That It Does Not Have Authority To Represent ......................................................................................... 12 IV. THE JUDGES SHOULD DISMISS IPG’S CLAIMANTS FOR WHOM IPG CANNOT ESTABLISH ITS REPRESENTATIONAL AUTHORITY OR THAT ARE INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ROYALTIES ............................................................ 20 Certain IPG Claimants That Were Dismissed In The 2000-2003 Cable Phase II Proceeding Should Be Dismissed Here Because IPG Has Not Produced Any New Evidence, Or The New Evidence Produced Does Not Support A Different Result ............................................................................ 21 Certain IPG Claimants That Were Dismissed In The March 21, 2013 Order Should Also Be Dismissed Here On The Same Basis ........... 21 Certain IPG Claimants That Were Dismissed In The Judges’ Final Determination Should Also Be Dismissed Here On The Same Basis ................................................................................................ 28 3. FIFA Should Be Dismissed In All Program Categories ............ .............. 29 No The Judges Should Dismiss IPG’s Claimants That Have Either Terminated Or Disavowed IPG’s Representation ................................................. 30 C° The Judges Should Dismiss IPG’s Claimants Where IPG Produced No Documents To Support Its Claims Of Authority .................................................. 31 IPG’s Recent Email Correspondence And Confirmations Alone Are Not Sufficient Evidence Of IPG’s Agency Relationships With Its Claimants ............ 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) The Judges Should Dismiss IPG’s Claimants Where IPG Produced Only Recently Executed Confirmations To Support Its Assertions That It Was Engaged By The Claimants At The Time It Filed The Claims ............................................................... 35 The Judges Should Dismiss IPG’s Claimants That Failed To Execute IPG’s Confirmation Of Representation Document ..................... 35 E. The Judges Should Dismiss IPG’s Claimants That Failed To File A Claim ........ 37 No The Judges Should Dismiss IPO’s Claimants That Did Not Verify Their Authority To Collect Retransmission Royalties For The Titles Claimed By IPG .................................................................................................... 37 go IPG’S WITNESSES ARE NOT CREDIBLE ................................................................... 38 IPG FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PRODUCTION AND PROOF AS TO THE PHASE I CATEGORY OF MULTIPLE TITLES ...................................... 41 VII. SHOULD THE JUDGES REACH THE ISSUE OF CATEGORIZATION, SEVEN OF IPG’S CROSS-CLAIMED TITLES SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS PROGRAM SUPPLIERS PROGRAMS, AND ONE SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED AS A DEVOTIONAL PROGRAM ..................................................... 43 vIIi. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... i ......................... 45 Tab AFFIDAVITS Nancy R. Alpert A&E Television Networks LLC ("AETN") ............................................. 1 Vernon G. Chu BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc. ("BBC-WA") ........................................ 2 Mikael Borglund Beyond International Limited ("Beyond") .............................................. 3 Ron Devillier Devitlier Donegan Enterprises, LP ("DDE") ........................................... 4 Diane Eskenazi Golden Films Finance Corporation ("Golden Films") ................................. 5 Tim Cook Pacific Family Entertainment ("Pacific") ............................................... 6 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Juan Dominguez Pacific Family Entertainment ("Pacific") ................................................. 7 Edward Safa LA TV Networks, successor in interest to Urban Latino TV, LLC ("Urban Latino") ................................................. 8 Fred Nigro Worldwide Pants, Inc. ("WPI") ....................................................................... 9 Tab DECLARATION OF GREGORY O. OLANIRAN 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Tab 22 23 ¯ 24 Confirmation of Engagement forms for Adler Media, Inc., Acme Communications, Inc. (by successor-in-interest Mojo Brands Media), Adams Golf, Cappy Productions, Inc., Envoy Productions, Films By Jove, Firing Line (aka National Review, Inc.), Florentine Films/Hott Productions, Inc., InCA Productions, Maureen Millen, et al., JCS Entertainment !I, Inc., Kid Friendly Productions, MBC Teleproductions, MoneyTV.net, Inc., Network Programs International, Productions Pixcom, Inc., Sarrazin Couture Entertainment, Satsuki Ina (aka Hesono O Productions), Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd., Whidby Island Films, Inc ...................................................................................... 25 Declaration of Denise Vernon in Response to Order of July 30, 2014, dated August 4, 2014 ............................................................................................ 26 Text utilized in multiple mass emails that IPG sent to its claimants in March and April of 2014 ...................................................................................... 27 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Tab Illegible copies of documents that purport to be printed copies of searches ¯ done on the website http://www.imdb.com ......................................................... 31 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JEFF ROVIN APPENDICES VOLUME II Tab REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS Joint Notice Of Intent To Participate And Comments On The Existence Of Controversies, Docket No. 2008-2 CARP CD. 2000 (September 30, 2002) (filed by Intermediary Copyright Royalty Services) ................................................................................... 1 Joint Notice Concerning Representation, Docket No. 2008-2 CRB CD 2000-2003 (Phase II) (April 17, .2013) (filed by Intermediary Copyright Royalty Services) ........................................................ 2 True And Correct Copies Of The 2004-2009 Cable And 1999- 2009 Satellite Royalty Claims Filed By Artist Collections Group LLC dba Worldwide Subsidy Group And Worldwide Subsidy Group LLC dba Independent Producers Group (collectively, "IPG") ............................................................................................... 3 V REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION Before the COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES Washington, D.C. ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-2009 Distribution of the 2004, 2005, 2006 ) (Phase II) 2007, 2008 and 2009 ) Cable Royalty Funds ) ) ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 Distribution of the 1999-2009 ) (Phase If) Satellite Royalty Funds ) ) MPAA’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS REGARDING CLAIMS MADE BY INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS GROUP The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. ("MPAA"), on behalf of its member companies and other producers and/or distributors of syndicated series, movies, specials, and non-team sports broadcast by television stations who have agreed to representation by MPAA ("MPAA-represented Program Suppliers"), in accordance with the August 29, 2014 Order Of Consolidation And Amended Case Schedule ("August 29, 2014 Order") issued by the Copyright Royalty Judges ("Judges"), hereby submits its Written Rebuttal Statement Regarding Claims ("WRS’), which sets forth its written objections to the claims presented by Independent Producers Group ("IPG") in this consolidated proceeding ("Written Objections").1 i See August 29, 2014 Order at Exhibit A, n. 1 ("Any participant objecting to distribution to or on behalf of any claimant or claimant’s representative must state the objection in writing and present competent evidence substantiating the objection."). Volume I of the WRS comprises the Written Objections and supporting evidence, including affidavits and other documentary evidence MPAA obtained from copyright owners