1 3.Defendants claim they do not have to obtain a license from and2 compensate Plaintiffs for exploiting their rights because Zediva purportedly is a3 "movie rental service," which involves a user "renting both a
and DVD player4 in [Defendants'] data center,,,3 and Zediva transmitting the movie to the user "over5 the Internet using streaming technologies.,,46 4. Defendants' comparison
the Zediva service to a rental store is7 disingenuous, and Defendants are attempting to rely
technical gimmicks in an8 effort to avoid complying with U.S. Copyright Law. Defendants operate an online9
service, not a neighborhood rental store. Unlike Zediva, rental stores do not
movies to the public
the Internet using streaming
technologies.,,5 A rental store
any other establishment would also need a license
to do so.
5.Under the plain language
the Copyright Act, Defendants are14 exercising Plaintiffs' exclusive rights to publicly perform their copyrighted works.
Plaintiffs' works are to the public16 regardless
whether Defendants' users receive those performances "in the same
place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times." 17 U.S.C.
a work 'publicly,'" clause (2)). Exercising19 Plaintiffs' exclusive rights without their
Defendants do not20 have and claim they do
6.Defendants' flagrant violation
Plaintiffs' exclusive rights directly22 undermines Plaintiffs' present and continuing development
a legitimate market for23 the exploitation
27283 http://www.zediva.comlfaq (last visited Apr. 1,2011).4 Letter from Venkatesh Srinivasan to Julius Genachowski,
Chairman at 1(Dec. 10, 2010) ("FCC Letter"), ht!R:/ www.zediva.comlZedivaFCCLetter-12102010.pdf (last visited Apr.
5 FCC Letter at