Redacted-Public Version Before the COPYRIGHT ROYAL TY JUDGES Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) Distribution of ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0010-CD 2010-2013 2010-2013 ) Cable Royalty Funds ) In the Matter of ) ) Distribution of ) Docket No. 14-CRB-0011-SD 2010-2013 2010-2013 ) ~Sa_t_el_li_te_&_o_y_al_ty_F_u_n_d_s _________) MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS' OPPOSITION TO MPAA MOTION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS MADE BY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS Brian D. Boydston, Esq. California State Bar No. 155614 PICK & BOYDSTON, LLP 10786 Le Conte Ave. Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (213) 624-1996 Facsimile: (213) 624-9073 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Multigroup Claimants Redacted-Public Version TABLE OF CONTENTS ARGUMENT I. MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS' CLAIMS ARE ENTITLED A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY A. MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FROM INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS GROUP, HAS NO COMMONALITY OF OWNERSHIP THEREWITH, NOR HAS ITS EXISTENCE HAD ANY CONSEQUENCE ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS OR ARGUMENTS MADE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS•..•••••••..• 6 B. MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY "FALSE FILINGS" ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS, NOR IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT IPG AND MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS CHRONICALLY UPDATE EACH OF MULTIPLE FILINGS•••••.•••••....•.••.•..•.••••••••••..•.•••.•••.•• 12 1. Federation Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA") .•••14 2. Phil Slater Associates ••.....•..•.............•.•••....•.. 17 3. West 175 Enterprises •••.•••••.......••.•••..•.•••..•.•.• 18 4. Azteca International Corp. (" AIC") oho TV Azteca .••...•.•••20 5. Aviva International cka DAS Entertainment••..•.••••••••••. 25 6. Image Entertainment.••....••.••.••...•......••.•..••••. 26 7. Big Feats Entertainment L.P•.•...•.••.•.•••.••.••••••.•.• 28 8. Bob Ross, Inc•••.•.••.•.•••.••••••.•.•.•.•.•...•••.•••.. 30 9. Devillier Donegan Enterprises.••.•.......••....•••..•.•..• 32 1O.Feed the Children .••.••.....•••••......•...•••••••••••.• 35 11.Golden Films Finance Corporation••••.•••.•••...•••..••••. 37 12.Pacific Family Entertainment•.•.••.•...•..••....••.•••.•• 39 13.Films By Jove•....•••..•.•.....•••....•.•••.•.......•••. 42 C. IPG'S PURSUIT OF ROYALTIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CLAIMANTS DISMISSED IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IN "BAD FAITH", BUT DUE TO NEW EVIDENCE, IPG'S "GOOD FAITH" DISAGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGES' RULINGS, 2 Redacted-Public Version AND THE FACT THAT SUCH DISMISSALS WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL••••..•••••....•••.•..•••••..••.• 43 II. THE MPAA ASSERTS SEVERAL BASES FOR DISMISSAL THAT ARE FACTUALLY OR LEGALLY WITHOUT MERIT A. AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT AND OF LAW, MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS HAD NO OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN CONSENT TO MAKE PROGRAM CLAIMS DIRECTLY FROM THE UNDERLYING OWNER OF COPYRIGHT.••.••.•....••••••• 44 B. THE MPAA ARGUES THAT CLAIMANTS DISAVOWING REPRESENTATION MUST BE DISMISSED, BUT CITES CLAIMANTS WITH WHOM IPG IS IN LITIGATION, CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE NOT DISAVOWED REPRESENTATION, AND CLAIMANTS FOR WHOM IPG HAS NOT EVEN MADE CLAIM••.•.•••.•.•••.••••..•.•.•..•.••. 50 1. Federation Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA") ••• 50 2. Aviva International••••...•....•...•..•...••.•...•..•..•. 50 3. Image Entertainment..•.....•....•....•..•....••...••••. 51 4. Phil Slater Associates .•.•••••••••..••••.•••.•••.•••.•••.• 51 5. West 175 Enterprises..••.....••••••.•••...•••••••••••••• 51 C. THE MPAA ASSERTS THE PRIORITY OF ITS CLAIMS BASED ON DOCUMENTS THE MPAA REFUSED TO PRODUCE IN DISCOVERY (INCLUDING TERMINATION LETTERS), AND SEEKS PRIO~TY FOR CLAIMANTS FOR WHOM THE COMPETING CLAIM MUST BE AWARDED TO MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS. • • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • • . • • . • . • . • • . • .51 1. Cinemavault Releasing ••••••••......•....•••...•••.•.•••.55 2. Knight Enterprises, Inc.••••.••...•...•..••....•••.•••••. 58 3. Productions Pixcom, Inc••••.•...•.••.•••.•...•••..••.••.. 60 4. Questar, Inc......•.•....•.......•...••..••.•.•.•••...•• 61 3 Redacted-Public Version 5. Azteca International Corp. (" AIC") oho TV Azteca •.•••..•.••63 D. THE MPAA SEEKS THE DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WHEN NEW EVIDENCE EXISTS, AND WHEN PRIOR RULINGS REFLECT THE JUDGES EVIDENT LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN SUBMITTED EVIDENCE ••••••••.•••..•.••••••••••••.••••• 66 1. Big Events Company•••.•.•...•.•....•.•.•....•••..••••.• 66 2. Firing Line (dba for National Review, Inc.) .•.••.••.....•.•• 67 3. Nelson Davis Productions.••...••.•.••.•.•••.•....••.••••. 67 4. Venevision International•••••.•••.•.•••••••..•.•.•••••••• 68 5. Federation Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA") ••• 69 6. King Motion Picture Corporation.•••.••.•••.•••.••.••••••• 69 7. Team Communications••••••..••..••••••.••..••..•.•.•••• 71 E. CONTRARY TO THE MPAA ASSERTION, MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS' CLAIMS ARE BASED ON A WEALTH OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN THIS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, AND IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THE JUDGES HAVE ALREADY AFFIRMED IPG'S REPRESENTATION .•..••.•.•.•....•.•.•.•..••.••••.••... 73 1. Adams Golf••••.•.•••••••....••.....••..••.•...•..••.•• 7 4 2. Big Events Company.••..•..•••••...••..••..•••.•.•.•••. 75 3. Phil Slater Associates •.••••••••...•.•..••••••••.•••••••.•75 4. West 175 Enterprises....••..•••...•.••••.••.•.•••....••• 75 5. Whidbey Island Films .•.•.....•••...••.••....•••.•••••.• 75 6. Aviva International..•••..•.••..•.•...••.•.•.•...••..•.• 75 7. Image Entertainment•..•.•.•.....•....................•• 75 8. Federation Internationale de Football Association .•...••••.••75 9. Azteca International Corporation oho TV Azteca .•••...••••• 75 10. Cogeco Radio Television .••..•••••••.••..••.•••..•.•..••• 75 11. King Motion Picture Corporation••...•••••...•••••.•••••• 76 12. Films By Jove Inc...•.••.......•.•.••.•••••••.•••••••••• 76 13. Lawrence Welk Syndication .•.....•....•..••.•••••.•.•••.76 14. Productions Pixcom, Inc••.•.•.•.•....•.•.•...•.•...•.•.. 77 4 Redacted-Public Version 15. Sound Venture Productions Ottawa, Ltd •.•••.••••••.••.••. 77 16. Venevision International..••..••.•...•.....•••.•...••••.. 77 17. IWV Media Group••.•.•.•...•.•.•..•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•••••• 77 18. Raycom Sports..•.•.....•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.•••..••...•.•• 78 F. THE MPAA SEEKS THE DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT EVEN ASSERTED BY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS •••.. 79 G. THE MPAA ARGUMENT IS REDUNDANT OF THE MPAA'S PRIOR ARGUMENT, PREMISES ITSELF ON THE REVERSAL OF THE "PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY", MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS, AND ASSERTS TBAT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS IS "OUTDATED AND LIKELY INACCURATE" WITHOUT THE SUBMISSION OF A SINGLE ITEM OF COUNTERVEILING EVIDENCE •••.•.••.•••.•..•...•.••.•• 81 H. THE MPAA CHALLENGES A HANDFUL OF PROGRAMS BASED PREDOMINATELY ON A MISREADING OF CLAIMANT CORRESPONDENCE OR INADEQUATE INFORMATION. THEMPAACHALLENGESA VASTLY GREATER NUMBER OF PROGRAMS WITHOUT EXPLANATION.••...••••.••..••••....•...•••••...•.••.•• 84 1. Aviva International (1 program) ....•.••.••••••.•••••••••• 84 2. Filmline International 1999 (2 programs) ..•...••.•...•••.••85 3. Films By Jove, Inc. (1 program) .••.•....•••••.•.•••.••••••85 4. West 175 Enterprises (5 programs) ..........••.......••.•• 86 5. MPAA challenge to programs of additional MC-represented claimants (unidentified number of programs) ••.....••..•••. 87 CONCLUSION••.••.........•..•...........•..•••.•......•..•..•• 88 5 Redacted-Public Version ARGUMENT I. MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS' CLAIMS ARE ENTITLED A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY. A. MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FROMINDEPENDENTPRODUCERSGROUP,HASNO COMMONALITY OF OWNERSHIP THEREWITH, NOR HAS ITS EXISTENCE HAD ANY CONSEQUENCE ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY MULTIGROUP CLAIMANTS OR ARGUMENTS MADE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. Contrary to the 1\1P AA' s accusation, MC is not a "shell" of Independent Producers Group, but an altogether separate legal entity. 1\1P AA accuses that IPG's transfer of rights to MC is "purposely designed to violate the Judges' prior rulings by attempting to shield IPG' s claims from meaningful scrutiny", and that MC has attempted to "game the system", but fails to identify how this has possibly been attempted, much less how it has occurred. As part of its initial production of documents on April 6, 2016, Multigroup Claimants produced the aggregate chain-of-title for any programs claimed in this proceeding, i.e., all documents reflecting agreements amongst the underlying copyright owner claimants, IPG, SLP, and MC. MC has not objected or withheld production of documents based on any transfers amongst IPG, SLP, and MC, so by what means the MC has attempted to "shield IPG's claims from meaningful scrutiny" or by what means the system has been "gamed", remains unarticulated by 6 Redacted-Public Version the MPAA. The MPAA' s accusation is literally based on nothing other than its own accusation. 1 As part of its accusation that some sort of unidentified malfeasance is occurring, the MPAA allege that a series of transfers have occurred from one commonly-owned entity to another. As its predicate in this argument, the MP AA assert that the principal of MC and SLP, Al Galaz, is also a principal of IPG. Such is simply not the case. Al Galaz has never been identified as a co-owner ofIPG in any documents public or private, e.g., federal tax returns, etc. Consequently, the MPAA' s starting point for its argument is incorrect. Al Galaz is the acknowledged owner of both MC and SLP, which are different sole proprietorships organized for mutually exclusive purposes. Contrary to the suggestion of the MPAA (and the outright accusation by the SDC), such fact has never been obscured.2 Notably, the authorization and transfer documents 1 Curiously, MC