Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/46825240/D-E-245-Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-The-Motion-Picture-Assoc
Timestamp: 2015-07-29 00:46:36
Document Index: 657800711

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 512', '§ 106', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 106', '§ 106', '§ 106']

D.E. 245 Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs - The Motion Picture Assoc.
P. 1D.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: 0Published by concerned-citizenMPAA 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:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: concerned-citizen on Jan 13, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/46825240/D-E-245-Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-The-Motion-Picture-Assoc01/13/2011pdftextoriginal 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)
THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATIONOF AMERICA, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
Kelly M. Klaus (
pending)Melinda LeMoineL. Ashley Aull (
pending)Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP355 South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071(213) 683-9100Attorneys for
Case 1:07-cv-09931-WHP -FM Document 245 Filed 12/30/10 Page 1 of 26
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
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
,92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)........................................................................................19
,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
17 U.S.C. § 101......................................................................................................................passim17 U.S.C. §§ 101
...................................................................................................................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
More From This UserEMI Request for Immediate Appeal of MP3tunes Rulingconcerned-citizenPayroll info for DMUSD Staffconcerned-citizenUMG v. Grooveshark (Escape Media)concerned-citizenEMI asks for expedited appeal of ruling OKing music lockersconcerned-citizenViacom v. Youtube Viacom's Post-Argument Briefconcerned-citizenPost Argument Letter Brief from Viacom in Youtube caseconcerned-citizenPost Argument Letter Brief From Youtube (Google) in Viacom caseconcerned-citizenMP3tunes Revised Order Regarding Motion for Reconsiderationconcerned-citizenViacom v. YouTube - MP3tunes Amicus Briefconcerned-citizenmyxerconcerned-citizenD.E. 228 Brief Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs - Sound Exchange ASCAP Etcconcerned-citizenGoogle Amicus Briefconcerned-citizenEMI Opposition to Googleconcerned-citizenWe7 2009 Financialsconcerned-citizenSpotify 2009 Financialsconcerned-citizenLast.FM 2009Financialsconcerned-citizenRecordTV Judgment - InternetDVR Ruled Legalconcerned-citizenBrief of Amici Curiae Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al, in support of Defendantsconcerned-citizenDefendants Opp to Plaintiffs SJ - Memo of Lawconcerned-citizenOpposition to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Briefconcerned-citizenMP3tunes' Motion for Summary Judgment - Memo of Lawconcerned-citizenYoutube Wins Case Against Viacomconcerned-citizenRN Notice of Withdrawal (Stamped Received)-1concerned-citizenSX Introductory Memorandumconcerned-citizen