2reasonable dispute,” Order at 25, and therefore that “Defendants’inducement liability is overwhelmingly clear,” id. at 15.On the issue of a permanent injunction, the Court has consideredthe briefs filed by the parties, the arguments presented at the March22, 2010 hearing on this matter, and the proposed language andarguments presented by the parties in response to the Court’s proposedorder. Based on the foregoing and all matters of record in thisaction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and 17 U.S.C. §502, the Court enters a Permanent Injunction in favor of Plaintiffs andagainst Defendants in accordance with the terms contained herein.
The Court concludes that a permanent injunction should issue torestrain further infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Plaintiffshave satisfied their burden under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,547 U.S. 388, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006), “(1) that[they have] suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies availableat law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for thatinjury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between theplaintiff[s] and defendant[s], a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4)that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanentinjunction.” Id. at 391.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have suffered irreparableharm, and would suffer further irreparable harm from Defendants’continued infringement, in three independent ways. First, given thestaggering volume of infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, it isextremely unlikely that Defendants will be able fully to compensate
Case 2:06-cv-05578-SVW-JC Document 426 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 19