P. 1
MP3tunes' Motion for Summary Judgment - Memo of Law

MP3tunes' Motion for Summary Judgment - Memo of Law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,185|Likes:
Published by concerned-citizen
MP3tunes' Motion for Summary Judgment in the copyright case with EMI Records.
MP3tunes' Motion for Summary Judgment in the copyright case with EMI Records.

More info:

Published by: concerned-citizen on Nov 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/05/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
DUANE
 
MORRIS
LLP
 
Gregory P. GuliaJohn DellaportasVanessa HewR. Terry Parker 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036(212) 692-1000Edward M. Cramp
(pro hac vice)
Michelle Hon
(pro hac vice)Counsel for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., CAROLINERECORDS, INC.,EMI CHRISTIAN MUSICGROUP INC., PRIORITY RECORDS LLC,VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.,BEECHWOOD MUSIC CORP., COLGEMS-EMIMUSIC INC., EMI APRIL MUSIC INC., EMIBLACKWOOD MUSIC, EMI FULL KEELMUSIC, EMI GOLDEN TORCH MUSIC CORP.,EMI LONGITUDE MUSIC, EMI VIRGIN MUSIC,INC., EMI VIRGIN SONGS, INC., EMI ALGALLICO MUSIC CORP., EMI ALGEE MUSICCORP., EMI FEIST CATALOG, INC., EMI GOLDHORIZON CORP., EMI GROVE PARK MUSIC,INC., EMI HASTINGS CATALOG, INC., EMIMILLS MUSIC, INC., EMI MILLER CATALOG,INC., EMI ROBBINS CATALOG, INC., EMI UCATALOG, INC., EMI UNART CATALOG, INC.,JOBETE MUSIC CO., INC., SCREEN GEMS-EMIMUSIC, INC., STONE AGATE MUSIC, andSTONE DIAMOND MUSIC,Plaintiffs,v.MP3TUNES, LLC, and MICHAEL ROBERTSON,Defendants. __________________________________________ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-Civ. 9931 (WHP)ECF Case
MEMORANDUM OF LAWIN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS .............................................................................................3I. MP3tunes Provides User-Directed Internet Services at MP3tunes.com andSideload.com ........................................................................................................................3II. MP3tunes Derives No Direct Financial Benefit From Any Alleged Infringement .............6III. MP3tunes Maintains a Comprehensive Policy and Practice of ProhibitingInfringing Activity ...............................................................................................................7IV. In 2007, Two EMI Entities Sent Take-Down Notices to MP3tunes, WhichPromptly Complied With Them ...........................................................................................8V. Plaintiffs Virally Market Free MP3 Downloads ..................................................................9VI. Deduplication Does Not Constitute Music File Sharing....................................................12ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................13I. The DMCA Immunizes MP3tunes From All of Plaintiffs’ Claims ...................................13A. MP3tunes’ Meets the Threshold Qualifications for the DMCA’s SafeHarbors Set by 512(k) and (i) ............................................................................... 131. MP3tunes is a “Service Provider”............................................................. 142. MP3tunes Has a Reasonable Repeat-Infringer Policy .............................. 143. MP3tunes Accommodates Standard Technical Measures ........................ 15B. MP3tunes Meets the Conditions of Section 512(c) .............................................. 151. MP3tunes Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Knowledge of theSpecific Infringements Alleged in This Suit ............................................. 16a.
 
Plaintiffs Did Not Send DMCA Take-Down Notices toProvide MP3tunes with Knowledge of the SpecificInfringement at Issue in this Litigation ..........................................17 b.
 
Knowledge of the Specific Infringements Cannot BeConstrued from Inadequate Notices...............................................17
 
 iii.
 
Insufficient Notices Sent by EMI Music Group North America and EMI Entertainment World AreInadequate to Impute Knowledge under the DMCA .........17ii.
 
Plaintiffs' Viral Marketing Practices Make ItImpossible for MP3tunes to Have ApparentKnowledge of Specific Infringing Activity .......................20c. Plaintiffs' Viral Marketing Practices Make It Impossible for MP3tunes to Have Constructive Knowledge Specific AllegedlyInfringing Activity ........................................................................ 202. MP3tunes Expeditiously Removed the Specific Infringements for Which itWas Properly Notified .............................................................................. 223. MP3tunes Meets Section 512(c)(1)(B)'s Requirement for DMCA SafeHarbor ....................................................................................................... 22a.
 
MP3tunes Cannot Control the Allegedly Infringing Activity........23 b.
 
MP3tunes Does Not Benefit From the Allegedly InfringingActivity ..........................................................................................25C. MP3tunes Meets the Requirements of § 512(d) ................................................... 25D. The DMCA Safe Harbors Apply to Claims of Infringements of SoundRecordings Authored Prior to 1972 ...................................................................... 26II. MP3tunes Is Not Liable for Direct Infringement ...............................................................28A. Direct Infringement Requires Volitional Conduct ................................................ 28B. MP3tunes Has Not Engaged in the Relevant Volitional Conduct ........................ 29III. MP3tunes Is Not Liable for Contributory Infringement ....................................................29IV. MP3tunes Is Not Liable for Vicarious Infringement .........................................................31V. Plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Claim Fails ........................................................................32VI. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Full Copyright Ownership .................................................... 33CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................34

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->