Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
myxer

myxer

Ratings: (0)|Views: 656|Likes:
Published by concerned-citizen
Myxer defeats UMG's Summary Judgment request. Court rules that Myxer does have DMCA protection.
Myxer defeats UMG's Summary Judgment request. Court rules that Myxer does have DMCA protection.

More info:

Published by: concerned-citizen on Apr 08, 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

04/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Case2:08-cv-03935-GAF-JCDocument548Filed
04/01/11
Page1of75Page
10
#:19983
16
1718192021
22
23
internetserviceproviderinadisputeovertheuseofcopyrightedmusicalcompositions.MyxerTechnologies,Inc.,("Myxer")operatesawebsitethatallowsMyxer'scustomers
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
91011
ARISTARECORDSLLC,
etal.
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTCENTRALDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
NO.CV08-03935GAF
(lCx)
ORDERGRANTINGINPARTANDDENYINGINPARTPLAINTIFF'SMOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT
[DocketNo.
308]
Plaintiffs,
12131415
MYXERINC.,
f/k/a
VISIBLETECHNOLOGIES,INC.,
etal.
v.
Defendants.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Likemanycasesfiledoverthepastdecade,thislawsuitpitsthemusicindustryagainstan
24
2511
26
1
1
27\
2811
touploadrecordedmusictothesiteandthen,throughtheuseofMyxer'ssoftware,downloadthemusictocellularphonesforuseasaringtone.UMGRecords,Inc.("UMG"),acompetitorintheringtonemarketandthesoleremainingplaintiffinthiscase,contendsthatMyxerallowsuploadedmusictoremainavailableonitssitetothegeneralpublictobedownloadedwithout
 
Case2:08-cv-03935-GAF-JCDocument548Filed
04/01/11
Page2of75PageID#:199841
2
3
4
5
6
7
compensationtoUMG.
1
Becauseofthatconduct,UMGcontendsthatMyxerisoperatingafile-sharingsitemuchlikethepeer-to-peerfilesharingencouragedbytheoriginalNapsterwebsite.Myxerdeniestheallegations.ThecaserequirestheCourttoreviewMyxer'sconductundertheDigitalMilleniumCopyrightAct("DMCA")todeterminewhether,overtherelevanttimeperiod,Myxertooksufficientstepstoqualifyforthesafe-harborprovisionsoftheDMCA.UMGcontendsthattheundisputedfactsdevelopedinthecourseofthislitigationestablishthatMyxerhasnotmetthe
8
requirementsnecessarytoassertthesafeharbordefenseandthatsummaryjudgmentshouldbeenteredinitsfavor.Myxeropposes.AstheCourtdiscussesindetailbelow,theCourtconcludesthatMyxerhasestablishedtheexistenceofgenuineissuesofmaterialfactfortrialwithrespecttoitsDMCAaffirmativedefense.Accordingly,themotionforsummaryjudgmentastoclaimsofdirect,contributoryandvicariousinfringementisDENIED.However,becauseMyxer'suseofPlaintiff'sworksdoesnotqualifyasfairuseunder15U.S.C.
§
107,themotionforsummaryjudgmentastothefairuseaffirmativedefenseisGRANTED.
9101112131415161718192021
22
23
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
24
251
261
1
271
2811
1
TheCourtnotesthatalthoughtheinstantMotionwasoriginallyfiledonbehalfofnumerousnamedPlaintiffs,thepartieshavestipulatedtodismissallnamedPlaintiffsexceptUl\AG.
(Seeinfra
Note3;
seegenerally
First
Am.
CompI.("FAC");SupplementalBriefinSupp.ofPl.'sMot.forSumm.J.("Pl.'sSupp.Brief")1;SupplementalBriefinOpp'ntoPI.'sMot.forSumm.
J.
("Def.'sSupp.Brief")1;
see
StipulationofDismissalofallClaimsofEMIMusicPIs.withPrejudice;
see
OrderofFeb.8,2010;
see
OrderofMay19,2010.)
2
 
232425
26
2728Case2:08-cv-03935-GAF-JCDocument548Filed
04/01/11
Page3of75PageID#:1998519
3
Thefollowingrecordcompanies,inadditiontoUMG,wereoriginallynamedPlaintiffs:(1)AristaRecordsLLC;(2)AtlanticRecordingCorporation;(3)BMGMusic;(4)CapitalRecords,LLC;(5)CarolineRecords,Inc.;(6)ElektraEntertainmentGroupInc.;(7)EMIChristianMusicGroup,Inc.;(8)LaFaceRecordsLLC;(9)PriorityRecords,LLC;(10)SonyBMGMusicEntertainment;(11)VirginRecordsAmerica,Inc.;(12)WarnerBros.RecordsInc.;and(13)ZombaRecordings,LLC.(FAC'I1.)
1
II.BACKGROUND
2
2
A.
ProceduralBackground
3
4OnJune16,2008,anumberofleadingrecordcompanies,includingPlaintiff5(collectively,"Plaintiffs"),"filedthisactionagainstMyxerandthreeindividualDefendants6(collectively,"Defendants"):(1)MyxerChiefExecutiveOfficerandFounderMichael"Myk"7Willis("Willis");(2)MyxerChairmanandPresidentScottKinnear("Kinnear");and(3)Myxer
8
CorporateDirectorRonHarris("Harris")(collectively,"IndividualDefendants").(Compl.~29;9Decl.ofKinnearinSupp.ofDef.'sOpp'ntoPIs.'Mot.forSumm.J.("KinnearDecl.")~1.)
10
Withrespecttotheindividuals,UMGcontends:
11
"Willis,Kinnear,andHarrisarethemovingforcesbehindtheinfringingactivities
12
allegedherein.Willis,Kinnear,andHarriscollectivelypossessmajority
1314
2
Thefactssetforthinthissectionareundisputedorwithoutsubstantialcontroversy.TheCourtwillnotaddressthenumerousimmaterialfactual"disputes"andobjectionsraisedbytheparties.Anexampleortwoshouldprovidesufficientexplanation.RelyingontheDepositionofRonHarris("Harris"),UMGassertsthat"Myxer'sbusinesshasbeenvaluedatover$60millionafigurewhichMyxerboardmemberHarrisstated,wasinhisopinion,toolow."(Pl.'sStatementofFacts("Pl.'sSOF")~13.)Inresponse,Myxerassertsthatthisis
"DISPUTED
totheextentthatwhatoneMyxerboardmemberbelievedaboutanAugust1,2008valuationreflectsMyxer'scurrent,accurate,estimatedvalue.
II
(Def.'sStatementofFacts("Def.'sSOF")~13.)TheCourtneednotresolvethis"dispute"toaddressthematerialissuesinthiscase.Myxersubmitsadditionalobjections("Myxer'sAdditionalObjections")astothe:(1)DeclarationofSildaPalerm;(2)DeclarationofJoanCho;and(3)DeclarationofWadeLeak.
(Seegenerally
Def.'sEvidentiaryObjectionstoCertainAllegedProofSubmittedinSupp.ofPl.'sMot.forSumm.J.("Myxer'sAdditionalObjections").)However,theCourthasunambiguouslyexplainedthatthereisnoissueastothePlaintiff'scopyrightownershipofthesoundrecordingsatissue
(See
Mins,ofAug.27,2010Hearing),andfurther,becausePlaintiffsWarnerandSonyaredismissedasNamedPlaintiffs,theCourtoverrulesDefendant'sAdditionalObjectionsastotheseDeclarations.Myxer'sAdditionalObjectionsobjectstotheDeclarationofDonaldMiller("MillerDeclaration"),exhibitswithintheMillerDeclaration,andthepersonalblogentriesofWillis,allofwhichareeitherirrelevantorimmaterialtotheCourt'sdeterminations.Nottobeoutdone,PlaintiffalsoobjectstoproofsubmittedbyMyxer.
(Seegenerally
Pl.lsEvidentiaryObjectionsinSupp.ofPl.'sMot.forSumm.1.("Pl.'sObjections").)TheCourtoverrulesPlaintiff'sObjectionsbecausetheyaregenerallyirrelevantand/orargumentative.Inshort,ifthefactissetforthinthisoranyothersectionofthememorandum,theCourthasconcludedthatitiseitherundisputedorwithoutsubstantialcontroversy(unlesstheCourtspecifiestothecontrary);ifitisnotincludedtheCourthasfoundittobedisputedorimmaterial.
15
16
17182021
22
3

Activity (4)

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

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)//-->