Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/133038960/Mpaa-Hotfile-Supp1
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 11:44:48
Document Index: 491029105

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 504 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2013 Page 1 of 6UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., and WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Plaintiffs, v. HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV, and DOES 1-10. Defendants. / HOTFILE CORP., Counterclaimant, v. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Counterdefendant. / PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Plaintiffs write to provide the Court with notice of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Fung, No. 10-55946, -- F.3d -- (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013) (“Fung II”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to respond to Defendants’ notice of supplemental authority regarding the Ninth Circuit’s superseding opinion in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, No. 09-55902, 2013 WL 1092793, -- F.3d-- (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (“Shelter Capital”), Docket Nos. 503 & 503-1.
Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 504 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2013 Page 2 of 6
A. Fung II. In Fung II, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 2009 WL 6355911, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1620 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“Fung I”), which had held defendants (an Internet-based service and its principal) liable for inducing copyright infringement and ineligible for any DMCA safe harbor. Plaintiffs have cited and relied upon the district court’s decision in Fung I in support of their summary judgment motion in this case. See Pls. Mot. for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 322, at 19, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32; Pls. Reply Mot. for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 425 at 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17. The Ninth Circuit affirmed both the district court’s liability determination and its holding that the Fung defendants were not eligible for any DMCA safe harbor. The Fung II decision is relevant to three issues raised by Plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary judgment against Hotfile: • The standards governing a claim for inducement of copyright infringement under Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005). See Fung II, slip op. at 19-37. Fung II confirms that plaintiffs do not need to causally connect individual acts of infringement to defendants’ infringement-inducing conduct. Once a defendant is found liable for inducing infringement under Grokster, the defendant is liable for all infringements resulting from the device or service at issue during the relevant time period. Fung II, slip op. at 32-37. • Disqualification from DMCA safe harbor by virtue of “red flag” knowledge of infringement, including the circumstances under which such infringement is obvious as a matter of law. Specifically, Fung II, slip op. at 45-47; id. at 46, holds that “red flag” knowledge of infringement exists when the material infringed (in that case, as here, popular movies and television programs) is “sufficiently current and well-known that it would have been objectively obvious to a reasonable person that the material solicited and assisted was both copyrighted and not licensed to random members of the public, and that the induced use was therefore infringing.” • Disqualification from DMCA safe harbor by reason of inducement liability under Grokster. See Fung II, slip op. at 51-52. While declining to rule out hypothetical situations in which an inducing infringer might be protected by the DMCA, the Court held that the Grokster inducement factors significantly bear on whether a defendant is disqualified from 2
Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 504 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2013 Page 3 of 6
the DMCA safe harbor under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (financial benefit and a right and ability to control). Fung II, slip op. at 38-39, 51-52. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that Grokster inducement factors evidence a defendant’s “substantial influence on the activities of users,” which can satisfy the “right and ability to control” prong of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B). Id. at 55 (quotation marks omitted). Here, Hotfile’s payments to users to upload content, including infringing content, are precisely the kind of “substantial influence” that, under Fung II, would disqualify a defendant from the safe harbor when the “financial benefit” prong is also met. See Fung II, slip op. at 51-53; Pls. Mot. for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 322, at 34-35 (demonstrating Hotfile receives a disqualifying financial benefit from infringement); Pls. Reply Mot. for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 425, at 19-20 (same). B. Shelter Capital. Shelter Capital, which was issued by the same panel as Fung II, supersedes the Ninth Circuit’s withdrawn opinion in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012), upon which Defendants had extensively relied in their motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 318 at 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20. Although Defendants have filed a notice of supplemental authority concerning Shelter Capital, see Docket No. 503, the changes in the superseding decision support Plaintiffs’ position. The principal difference between the two decisions is that the superseding decision withdraws the Ninth Circuit’s previous holding that a plaintiff must show that the defendant had itemspecific knowledge of infringements in order to disqualify defendant from the DMCA safe harbor under the direct financial benefit and control provision of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B), and instead conforms its discussion of the “control” standard to the one articulated by Fung II and discussed above. See Shelter Capital, 2013 WL 1092793 at *19. Shelter Capital also changes the Court’s discussion of the “red flag” disqualification from the DMCA safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii), making the DMCA disqualification easier, not harder, to prove. For instance, Shelter Capital now notes that whether infringement is “objectively obvious to a reasonable person may vary depending on the facts proven by the copyright holder in establishing liability,” Shelter Capital, 2013 WL 1092793 at *15, n.15 (internal quotation marks omitted), thus emphasizing that this is a case-by-case inquiry. In addition, while retaining its previous holding that “red flag” knowledge must be item-specific, Shelter Capital now acknowledges the possibility that once a service provider loses its safe 3
Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 504 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2013 Page 4 of 6
harbor due to “red flag” awareness of specific infringements on its system to which it has not disabled access, it may lose the safe harbor for all infringements, and not only for those for which awareness has been proven. See Shelter Capital, 2013 WL 1092793 at *14, n.14. Fung II similarly emphasizes that a service provider who is aware of some specific infringements on its system might not be able to claim DMCA protection at all. See Fung II, slip op. at 47 n.20 (“it is not clear from the language of § 512(c) or from the pertinent case law, whether exclusion from the § 512(c) safe harbor because of actual or ‘red flag’ knowledge of specific infringing activity applies only with regard to liability for that infringing activity, or more broadly.”). DATED: March 21, 2013 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Karen L. Stetson Karen L. Stetson GRAY-ROBINSON, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue 16th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 416-6880 Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. Karen R. Thorland (Pro Hac Vice) 15301 Ventura Blvd. Building E Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 995-6600 Fax: (818) 285-4403 JENNER & BLOCK LLP Steven B. Fabrizio (Pro Hac Vice) Luke C. Platzer (Pro Hac Vice) 1099 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 504 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2013 Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY on this 21st day of March, 2013, I served the following document on all counsel of record on the attached service list via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority and Response to Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority I further certify that I am admitted to the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida and certify that this Certificate of Service was executed on this date. By: /s/ Karen L. Stetson Karen L. Stetson
Case 1:11-cv-20427-KMW Document 504 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2013 Page 6 of 6
SERVICE LIST Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Hotfile Corp. et al. CASE NO. 11-CIV-20427-WILLIAMS-TURNOFF
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulMpaa Hotfile Supp1 by torrentfreak0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedMPAA piracy banby torrentfreakHotfile Mpaa Replyby torrentfreakBrian Culkin Declarationby Tony OrtegaHotfile Warnerperj3cbecf3c 1b4b 45ea b81e 1d958d38dc2fby torrentfreakMega Evidenceby torrentfreakCharlie Sheen Lawsuit Over Two and a Half Men Firingby FindLawDisney v. Hotfile SJ Order (M.D. Fla 2013)by Fred Von LohmannHooters v. Raising Cane's - Fresh Never Frozen declaratory judgment.pdfby Mark H. JaffeSSRN-id2199058by torrentfreakKim Dotcom Mega Upload forfeiture opinion.pdfby Mark H. JaffeNinth Circuit Order Granting Stay in Prop 8 Litigationby FindLawEric Williams motion for new trialby wfaachannel8Plaintiffs' Opposition to Hotfile's Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms.pdfby Devlin HartlineEEOC Lawsuit Against Starbucks for Firing a Dwarfby FindLawFlorida Politicians, Government Officials, and Scientologyby AnonLoverThree's Company fair use opinion.pdfby Mark H. JaffeIsohunt Rehearingby torrentfreakGrooveshark opinion - Capitol Records v. Escape Media.pdfby Mark H. JaffeCBS' Amended Counterclaims v. Dish Networkby steven_musilCopyright Green Paperby torrentfreakDavid Love report, Quebec Human Rights Commissionby Tony OrtegaBlurred Injunctionby Eriq GardnerRathbun v. Scientology: Counsel Withdrawalby Tony OrtegaSarah Heller Declarationby Tony OrtegaScientology Australia Financial Report 2012by Tony OrtegaScientology Australia Financial Report 2011by Tony OrtegaTpb Appealby torrentfreakMotion to Dismiss bachelorby eriq_gardner6833Similar to Hotfile _ Plaintiffs' Opposition to Google MotionSkip carouselMPAA piracy banHotfile Mpaa ReplyBrian Culkin DeclarationHotfile Warnerperj3cbecf3c 1b4b 45ea b81e 1d958d38dc2fMega EvidenceCharlie Sheen Lawsuit Over Two and a Half Men FiringDisney v. Hotfile SJ Order (M.D. Fla 2013)Hooters v. Raising Cane's - Fresh Never Frozen declaratory judgment.pdfSSRN-id2199058Kim Dotcom Mega Upload forfeiture opinion.pdfNinth Circuit Order Granting Stay in Prop 8 LitigationEric Williams motion for new trialPlaintiffs' Opposition to Hotfile's Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms.pdfEEOC Lawsuit Against Starbucks for Firing a DwarfFlorida Politicians, Government Officials, and ScientologyThree's Company fair use opinion.pdfIsohunt RehearingGrooveshark opinion - Capitol Records v. Escape Media.pdfCBS' Amended Counterclaims v. Dish NetworkCopyright Green PaperDavid Love report, Quebec Human Rights CommissionBlurred InjunctionRathbun v. ScientologySarah Heller DeclarationScientology Australia Financial Report 2012Scientology Australia Financial Report 2011Tpb AppealMotion to Dismiss bachelorGov.uscourts.cacd.545913.15.0Science Fiction Chronicle, April 1986Hotfile _ Plaintiffs' Opposition to Google Motion