Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc.

Last updated
Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems
Court United States District Court for the Central District of California
Full case nameWarner Bros. Entertainment INC., et al. v. WTV Systems, Inc.
DecidedAugust 1, 2011
Citation(s)824 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (2011) [1]
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John F. Walter
Keywords
copyright infringement, video on demand

Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems is a 2011 copyright infringement case decided in United States District Court, C.D. California.

Contents

The defendants provided a service named Zediva which allowed customers to watch movies online by streaming the digital signal from physical DVD players housed in its data center. [2] The court held that the defendants were transmitting and publicly performing the plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and thus granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. [1]

Background

The plaintiffs, including Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Universal City Studios, were in the business of financing, producing, distributing, and publicly performing copyrighted motion pictures. [1] The defendants, Zediva, self-described as a DVD "rental" service, served its customers with access to DVDs played from their data center where each DVD was streamed through its individual DVD player for up to four hours. Zediva customers did not have access to the digital file. [3]

Zediva was not licensed or authorized by the plaintiffs to distribute or perform any of the copyrighted works. Zediva purchased DVDs and "rented" them out to users one-by-one. Under the first-sale doctrine, if the defendants' business is identical to a brick-and-mortar rental store, such post-purchase rentals do not require subsequent licenses from the copyright owners. [3] Zediva claimed that once they bought the DVD they were "free" to rent it out or re-sell it. [4] Zediva also argued that the system was "like playing back a movie from a DVD with a very long cable attached". [5]

The plaintiffs alleged that "Zediva's business was built on streaming performances of motion pictures, not the rental of discs". [6] Zediva's service was thought to have a significant negative impact on the market for other licensed VOD providers. [3] The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against Zediva.

Opinion

The court looked at the following four factors of whether the preliminary injunction can be granted in favor of the plaintiffs: [1]

  1. likelihood of success on the merits.
  2. likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.
  3. the balance of equities tips in the moving party's favor.
  4. an injunction is in the public's interest.

Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success on the Merits.

To establish the copyright infringement claim, plaintiffs must prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106 was infringed. The defendants did not dispute the validity of Plaintiffs' copyright. [1]

Section 106 of the Copyright Act granted the owner of copyright "in the case of ... motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly". [7]

Section 101 defines public performance of a work as:

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. [8]

The court ruled that the defendants were "clearly transmitting performances of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works", and that the argument that the service was offering "DVD rentals" did not stand. [1]

Furthermore, the court ruled that the defendants' transmissions were "to the public" for purposes of the transmission clause. Whether the place where Zediva's customers watched was public or not did not matter as much as the fact that the customers were "members of the public". "The non-public nature of the place of the performance has no bearing on whether or not those who enjoy the performance constitute 'the public' under the transmit clause", stated the court. It did not matter whether Zediva's customers were using the service at different times and in different places. [1]

Accordingly, the court held that "Defendants [violated] Plaintiffs' exclusive right to publicly perform their Copyrighted Works by transmitting those Copyrighted Works to the public over the internet, without a license or Plaintiffs' permission, through the use of Defendants' Zediva service". The likelihood of success on the merits weighed in favor of the Plaintiffs. The court also refused to adopt the Second Circuit's volitional requirement in direct copyright infringement cases. For example, in Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. , the Second Circuit has held that a technology provider is not liable for direct copyright infringement if there is no volitional conduct. [1]

Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Irreparable Injury.

The court held that the plaintiffs as copyright holders had the exclusive right to decide when, where, to whom, and for how much they could authorize transmission to the public, and the defendants interfered with such right. In addition, Defendants' service deprived Plaintiffs of revenue. Furthermore, the service threatened the development of a successful and lawful video on demand market, particularly on the Internet. Last, even though the plaintiffs required their licensees to provide a high quality movie-watching experience to the VOD customers, the defendants being non-licensed, were not obligated to meet such standards and provided sub-optimal customer experience that tarnished customers' perception of VOD as an attractive option for viewing the Copyrighted Works. [1]

The Public Interest Supports the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction.

The court held that the "public interest is served by issuance of a preliminary injunction" in order to uphold copyright protections. [1]

Impact

After the ruling, Zediva issued a statement calling the ruling "a setback for the hundreds of thousands of consumers looking for an alternative to Hollywood-controlled online movie services." [9]

Techdirt editor Mike Masnick also criticized the decision, arguing that the fundamental question the court has considered was "whether or not the length of the cable matters in determining whether something is infringing or not". [10]

Daniel Robinson, writing for the Harvard Journal of Law And Technology's blog, noted that the holding is "likely to increase the power that copyright owners will have over the growing market in video on demand". [2] He further noted that the holding "eliminates a potential alternative to content distribution systems owned or controlled by studios [and] implies that the success of streaming videos depends on giving copyright owners greater control over the technology by which they are delivered". [2]

The court did not directly address Zediva's first sale argument, but law professor James Grimmelmann pointed out that "first sale is a defense only to the distribution and display rights", irrelevant to the lawsuit based on the performance right. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.</i> US copyright infringement court decision

Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182, was a copyright case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Songwriter Gilbert O'Sullivan sued rapper Biz Markie after Markie sampled O'Sullivan's song "Alone Again (Naturally)". The court ruled that sampling without permission constitutes copyright infringement. The judgment changed the hip hop music industry, requiring that any future music sampling be approved by the original copyright owners.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<i>Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.</i>

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, was a United States district court decision on the subject of deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000), was the district court case which preceded the landmark intellectual property case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001). The case was heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Napster appealed this case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i>

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp. 900 F.Supp. 433 was a case heard before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 1995. The case revolved around the subject of copyright infringement and exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises filed a motion for partial summary judgment of liability of copyright infringement against defendant Starware Publishing Corporation. Specifically, Playboy Enterprises ("PEI") argued that Starware's distribution of 53 of Playboy's images, taken from an online bulletin board, and then sold on a CD-ROM, infringed upon PEI's copyrights. The case affirmed that it was copyright infringement, granting Playboy Enterprises the partial summary judgment. Most importantly, the case established that "The copyright owner need not prove knowledge or intent on the part of the defendant to establish liability for direct copyright infringement."

<i>Wright v. Warner Books, Inc.</i> American legal case

Wright v. Warner Books (1991) was a case in which the widow of the author Richard Wright (1908–1960) claimed that his biographer, the poet and writer Margaret Walker (1915–1998), had infringed copyright by using content from some of Wright's unpublished letters and journals. The court took into account the recent ruling in Salinger v. Random House, Inc. (1987), which had found that a copyright owner had the right to control first publication, but found in favor of Walker after weighing all factors. The case had broad implications by allowing the use of library special collections for academic research.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit over the playing video cassettes in-store of a video sale and rental store. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures.

<i>WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.</i> American legal case

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., was a copyright infringement case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant an injunction for the plaintiffs, barring ivi, Inc. from broadcasting television programming over the Internet. This decision set a precedent that broadcast television material can be protected by copyright and cannot be re-transmitted on the Internet without permission.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>Mandeville-Anthony v. Walt Disney Co.</i>

Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company, 11-56441, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Court evaluated whether defendants Pixar, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Walt Disney Pictures infringed on Jake Mandeville-Anthony's copyrighted works. Plaintiff Mandeville-Anthony's claim for copyright infringement was first dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, because the court found that the parties’ works were not substantially similar. Mandeville-Anthony made copyright infringement claims with regards to his works Cookie & Co. and Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos, an animated television show and movie, that he believed Disney copied in order to make their own films, Cars and Cars 2, both of which were very successful, and the animated television show Cars Toons: Mater's Tall Tales. He also made breach of contract claims stating that he and Disney signed a contract barring Disney from using the ideas contained in his works. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

<i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV</i>

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989, was a court case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which enjoined iCraveTV, a Canadian TV streaming website, from operating within the US after finding it in violation of 20th Century Fox's, and several other motion picture studios and television networks, copyrights and trademarks. Granted February 8, 2000, this injunction, along with continued legal pressure, led to the iCraveTV's demise just 3 months after its debut.

<i>Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.</i> American legal case

Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 720 F.2d 231, the case of Superman v. The Greatest American Hero, is the third case in a Second Circuit trilogy of 20th century copyright infringement cases in which the proprietors of Superman copyrights sued other companies for publishing fictional exploits of a cape-wearing superhero. Although the plaintiffs were successful in the first two cases, Superman v. Wonderman and Superman v. Captain Marvel, they were completely unsuccessful in Superman v. The Greatest American Hero. The court held that "as a matter of law. .. 'The Greatest American Hero' is not sufficiently similar to the fictional character Superman, the hero of comic books, television, and more recently films, so that claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition may be dismissed without consideration by a jury."

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. was a 2016 United States District Court for the Central District of California case in which four major Hollywood studios -- Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros. -- filed a copyright infringement complaint against VidAngel, a company which allows users to filter out objectionable content from movies and TV shows. The studios alleged that the method VidAngel used to filter and stream films to its users was illegal under copyright law because they broke the encryption on DVDs and Blu-rays. VidAngel contended that their method was legal under an exception provided by the Family Movie Act.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems, 824F.Supp.2d1003 (2011).
  2. 1 2 3 Robinson, Daniel (2011). "Court Shuts Down DVD Streaming Service Zediva" . Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 Gerson, Eric (2011). "Zediva.com: First-sale Protection or Public Performance?".
  4. ↑ Singel, Ryan (2011). "Zediva Streams New Releases Through Copyright Loophole". WIRED. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  5. ↑ "Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems Opposition to Motion Picture Studios' Motion for Preliminary Injunction". 2011. Case No. 2:11-cv-02817-JFW -E. Retrieved 9 October 2012.
  6. ↑ MPAA (2011). "Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc.: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF).
  7. ↑ "17 USC § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works".
  8. ↑ "17 USC § 101 - Definitions".
  9. ↑ Sandoval, Greg (2011). "Federal court to order film service Zediva shut down". CNET. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  10. ↑ Mike Masnick (2011). "Court Shuts Down Zediva: Apparently The Length Of The Cable Determines If Something Is Infringing".
  11. ↑ Grimmelmann, James (2011). "That Zediva Thing? It's So Not Going to Work" . Retrieved 28 September 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.