Scribd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO MOTION TO CLARIFY 16-CV-04109-AB (PLAX)

GLENN D. POMERANTZ (SBN 112503)

glenn.pomerantz@mto.com

KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN 161091)

kelly.klaus@mto.com

ROSE LEDA EHLER (SBN 296523)

rose.ehler@mto.com

ALLYSON R. BENNETT (SBN 302090)

allyson.bennett@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION and WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, vs. VIDANGEL, INC., Defendant and Counter-Claimant. Case No. 16-cv-04109-AB (PLAx)

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO VIDANGEL’S MOTION TO CLARIFY OR CONSTRUCT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

Judge: Hon. André Birotte Jr. Date; July 24, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 7B Trial Date: None Set

Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 188 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:5727

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

-i-


INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2

A.

The Preliminary Injunction Is Correct, Clear And On Appeal ............... 2

B.

VidAngel Waited Months To File This Motion, And Now Demands A Hurry-Up Ruling ................................................................. 3

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 4

I.

VIDANGEL’S “MOTION TO CLARIFY” IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER ....................................................................................................... 4

A.

The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction To Consider VidAngel’s Request To Change The Preliminary Injunction .................................... 4

B.

The Motion Seeks To Modify The Preliminary Injunction Order, Not Clarify It ........................................................................................... 6

II.

VIDANGEL’S PROPOSED CONDUCT IS COVERED BY THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER AND WOULD VIOLATE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHTS .................................................................................... 8

A.

VidAngel’s Making Of Multiple Copies Would Violate The Order And Infringe Plaintiffs’ Reproduction Right ................................ 8

B.

VidAngel’s Streaming Of Plaintiffs’ Works From Master Copies Would Violate The Order And Infringe Plaintiffs’ Public Performance Right .................................................................................. 9

C.

VidAngel Has Failed To Demonstrate Its Service Does Not Circumvent And Falls Outside The Scope Of The Order ..................... 12

D.

The Court Has Already Found That VidAngel’s Unauthorized Copying And Streaming Are Not Fair Uses ......................................... 13

E.

The FMA Does Not Excuse VidAngel’s Infringing Conduct .............. 18

F.

While Irreparable Harm Is Not At Issue Here, VidAngel’s Service Threatens Harm, The Full Extent Of Which Cannot Be Determined Without Discovery ............................................................ 19

III.

OPEN QUESTIONS PRECLUDE GRANTING VIDANGEL’S MOTION ON THIS RECORD ....................................................................... 21

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 23


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

-ii-


F

EDERAL

C

ASES

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 16

American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.

, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014).......................................................................................... 11

Atiyeh v. Filtex Corp.

, 130 F. Supp. 196 (S.D. Cal. 1955) ......................................................................... 7

Britton v. Co-op Banking Group

, 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................ 5

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ................................................................................. 14, 15, 16

Clean Flicks of Colo., LLC v. Soderbergh

, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2006) ........................................................... 15, 16

Cornucopia Prods., LLC v. Dyson Inc.

, No. CV12-0234-PHX-NVW, 2013 WL 12098786 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2013) ................................................................................................................... 6, 7

Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C.

, 710 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 6

Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video

, 349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 14, 15

In re Hendrix

, 986 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 6

Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888

, 536 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................ 5, 6

Ideal Toy Corp. v. Sayco Doll Corp.

, 302 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1962) ................................................................................... 4

Lara v. Sec’y of Interior of U.S.

, 820 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................ 6
