Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
D.E. 245 Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs - The Motion Picture Assoc.

D.E. 245 Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs - The Motion Picture Assoc.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 67|Likes:
Published by concerned-citizen
MPAA brief in support of EMI in EMI v MP3tunes over the legality of a music search engine and personal cloud music storage.
MPAA brief in support of EMI in EMI v MP3tunes over the legality of a music search engine and personal cloud music storage.

More info:

Published by: concerned-citizen on Jan 13, 2011
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

01/13/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
12552609.1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCapitol Records, LLC, Caroline Records,Inc., EMI Christian Music Group Inc.,Priority Records LLC, Beechwood MusicCorp., Colgems-EMI Music Inc., EMI AprilMusic Inc., EMI Blackwood Music, EMI FullKeel Music, EMI Golden Torch Music Corp.,EMI Longitude Music, EMI Virgin Music,Inc., EMI Virgin Songs, Inc., EMI Al GallicoMusic Corp., EMI Algee Music Corp., EMIFeist Catalog, Inc., EMI Gold Horizon Corp.,EMI Grove Park Music, Inc., EMI HastingsCatalog, Inc., EMI Mills Music, Inc., EMIMiller Catalog, Inc., EMI Robbins Catalog,Inc., EMI U Catalog, Inc., EMI UnartCatalog, Inc., Jobete Music Co., Inc., ScreenGems-EMI Music, Inc., Stone Agate Music,and Stone Diamond Music,Plaintiffs,v.MP3Tunes, LLC, and Michael Robertson,Defendants.No. 07 Civ. 9931 (WHP)
BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE
THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATIONOF AMERICA, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
Kelly M. Klaus (
 pro hac vice
pending)Melinda LeMoineL. Ashley Aull (
 pro hac vice
pending)Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP355 South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071(213) 683-9100Attorneys for
 Amicus Curiae
 Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP -FM Document 245 Filed 12/30/10 Page 1 of 26
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 -i-
12552609.1
 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST..........................................................................................1II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................1III. DEFENDANTS’ AND AMICI’S PROPOSED INTERPRETATION OF THEDMCA WOULD PROVIDE SAFE HARBOR PROTECTION TO CULPABLESERVICE PROVIDERS....................................................................................................4A. Congress Enacted The DMCA to Reduce Legal Uncertainty For InnocentProviders—Not To Provide Safe Harbor To Service Providers That BuildTheir Business On Copyright Infringement...........................................................4B. Section 512(c) Limits Liability Only for Service Providers That ActExpeditiously to Stop Infringement When They Acquire Either “ActualKnowledge” or “Awareness” of Infringement.......................................................6C. Amici’s Argument That Knowledge Based On Information From TheCopyright Owner Must Be Disregarded in Analyzing “Actual Knowledge”or “Awareness” Under § 512(c)(1)(A) Is Baseless And Makes For BadPublic Policy..........................................................................................................8IV. UNAUTHORIZED PERFORMANCES FROM A SINGLE-SOURCE COPY TONUMEROUS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INDISPUTABLY VIOLATE THEPUBLIC PERFORMANCE RIGHT, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(4), (6)......................................11A. Performances Are “To The Public” Regardless Whether Those Capable Of Receiving Them Do So “In The Same Place Or In Separate Places And AtThe Same Time Or At Different Times”.............................................................11B. Defendants’ And Their Amici’s Arguments Based On Cablevision AreDemonstrably Wrong...........................................................................................141. Defendants’ Amici Manufacture Support For their “Volition”Argument.................................................................................................162. The Fact That Potential Recipients Of Defendants’ TransmissionStreams May Receive Them At Different Times And In DifferentPlaces “Is Of No Moment,” As Cablevision Makes Clear......................173. The Statute And The Case Law (Including Cablevision Itself)Make It Clear That Separate On-Demand Transmissions From ASingle Source To Multiple Users Unequivocally Violate ThePublic Performance Right........................................................................18V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................21
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP -FM Document 245 Filed 12/30/10 Page 2 of 26
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)
 -ii-
12552609.1
 
F
EDERAL
C
ASES
 
 ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Communities, Inc.
,239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................6
Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.,
536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008).............................................................................................passim
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.
,866 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1989).............................................................................................13, 18
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.
,749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984).............................................................................................passim
On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries
,777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991)....................................................................................13, 16
Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC 
488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007)...................................................................................................9
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV 
,Nos. 00-121, 120, 2000 WL 255989 (W.D. Pa. Feb, 8, 2000)..........................................14, 16
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.Com, Inc.
,92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)........................................................................................19
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc.
,665 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2009).....................................................................................9
Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube
,718 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)........................................................................................7
Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entm’t, Inc.
,192 F. Supp. 2d 321 (D. N.J. 2002), aff’d, 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2003)..........................13, 16
F
EDERAL
S
TATUTES
 
17 U.S.C. § 101......................................................................................................................passim17 U.S.C. §§ 101
et seq.
...................................................................................................................117 U.S.C. § 106(4).........................................................................................................................1117 U.S.C. §§ 106(4), (6)............................................................................................................1, 1117 U.S.C. § 106(5).........................................................................................................................12
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP -FM Document 245 Filed 12/30/10 Page 3 of 26

Activity (2)

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)//-->