Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.

Citation224 F.Supp.3d 957
Decision Date12 December 2016
Docket NumberCase No. 2:16–cv–04109–AB (PLAx)
Parties DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Plaintiff, v. VIDANGEL, INC., Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California

Allyson Bennett, Glenn D. Pomerantz, Rose Leda Ehler, Kelly M. Klaus, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Brian T. Grace, Ryan G. Baker, Scott Matthew Malzahn, Jaime W. Marquart, Baker Marquart LLP, Donald R. Pepperman, Maxwell M. Blecher, Taylor Chase–Wagniere, Blecher Collins Pepperman and Joye PC, Brendan Stephen Maher, Daniel L. Geyser, Elizabeth Rogers Brannen, Peter K. Stris, Stris and Maher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David W. Quinto, VidAngel Inc., Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ("Mot." Dkt. No. 26–1.) Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendant VidAngel Inc. ("VidAngel") from [1] violating Plaintiffs' rights pursuant to § 1201(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), by circumventing technological measures that effectively control access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works on DVDs and Blu-ray discs; and [2] infringing by any means, directly or indirectly, Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under § 106 of the Copyright Act, id. § 106, including by reproducing or publicly performing Plaintiffs' copyrighted works.

Plaintiffs bring this motion on the grounds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer irreparable harm, absent an injunction. Plaintiffs contend that the balance of equities tips decidedly in their favor, and an injunction is in the public interest. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that VidAngel's defenses to violating Plaintiff's rights are meritless and thus Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against Defendants. VidAngel filed an opposition and the Plaintiffs filed their reply. The Court heard oral arguments from the parties on November 14, 2016 and took the matter under submission. Upon considerationof the parties' arguments, papers and the case file, the court hereby GRANTS the motion for preliminary injunction.

I. BACKGROUND

a. Factual and Procedural Background

i. Plaintiffs and Their Copyrighted Works

Plaintiffs are in the business of producing and distributing motion pictures and television programs. ("Compl." Dkt. No 1 ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs invest considerable effort and resources each year to develop, produce, distribute and publicly perform their Copyrighted Works. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs own and have the exclusive U.S. rights to reproduce and publicly perform their Copyrighted Works, including by means of streaming those works over the internet to the public. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs distribute and license their content for home entertainment across a number of channels. (Id. at ¶ 27.) These include, among others: (1) physical Discs; (2) digital download through services like iTunes, VUDU or Amazon Video; (3) on-demand streaming for short-term viewing on a per transaction fee (e.g., iTunes Store or Google Play Store); or (4) subscription on-demand streaming (e.g., Netflix or Hulu). (Cittadine Decl. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs strategically release their content across different distribution channels and to different licensees over time, a process called "windowing." (Id. ) The value and price for each offering is tailored to the willingness of customers (and licensees) to pay for those offerings. (Id. ) Plaintiffs often negotiate higher licensing fees in exchange for granting a licensee the exclusive right to perform a movie or television show during a particular time period. (Id. ) Plaintiffs assert that online and digital distribution channels have become increasingly important revenue sources. (Id. ¶ 10.)

ii. VidAngel's Service

VidAngel offers more than 2,500 movies and television episodes for purchase on its website. Answer/Counterclaim ("CC," Dkt. No. 77 ¶ 59.) VidAngel purchases physical copies of each of these titles in DVD format. (Id. ) VidAngel enters each DVD it has purchased into an inventory management application database and assigns a unique barcode to each physical disc case. (Id. at ¶ 60.) VidAngel then uses a commercially available software program to decrypt a copy of each individual title. (Meldal Dec., ¶ 37(ii).) After decryption, VidAngel creates "intermediate" files. (Oppo. at 17.) VidAngel tags the files for over 80 types of potentially objectionable content. (Meldal Dec., ¶¶ 33–38.)

Before watching a particular movie or television episode, a customer must purchase a physical DVD containing the title from VidAngel. (CC ¶ 63.) The purchase price for each DVD is $20. (Id. ¶ 64.) To purchase a disc, users must logon to the VidAngel website. First-time users are required to provide an email address to establish a unique user ID and create a password. (Id. ) Once a purchase transaction has occurred, the disc is removed from available inventory and the title is transferred to that customer's unique user ID. (Id. at 65.) VidAngel typically maintains possession of the physical DVD on behalf of the purchasers, but purchasers may request that the DVD be sent to them or retrieve the DVD from VidAngel's offices. (Id. ¶ 63.)

After a customer purchases a physical DVD they are shown a listing of the various types of potentially objectionable content identified in the purchased work, as well as the number of occurrences of each such type of content within the work. (Id.¶ 62.) The user then selects the types of content he or she wishes to have silenced or deleted. (Id. ) Each user must apply at least one filter in order to view a video. (Id. ¶ 30.) After selecting filters, a subscriber is able to view the stream instantaneously on any VidAngel-supported device, including Roku, Apple TV, Smart TV, Amazon Fire TV, Android, Chromecast, iPad/iPhone and desktop or laptop computers. (Id. ¶ 66.)

Once a user has viewed a stream, the user may re-sell the DVD back to VidAngel for a partial credit of the $20 purchase price. (Id. ¶ 68.) The sellback price decreases $1 per night for standard definition (SD) purchases and $2 per night for high-definition (HD) purchases. (Id. ) Once a user sells the movie back to VidAngel, the user's access to the title is terminated and the remaining balance is credited back to the user's VidAngel account. (Id. ) For example: A $20 SD disk is owned for 2 nights at $1 per night and sold back for $18 in sell-back credit. (Id. ) If a VidAngel customer keeps a DVD for more than 20 days, he or she can either view it through the VidAngel platform in perpetuity, sell it back for $1 or $2 in credit, or VidAngel will send the DVD to the customer, if requested. (Id. )

At the time of this motion, VidAngel offered over 80 of Plaintiff's copyrighted works on their website. (Compl. Ex. A.; Ehler Decl. Ex. EE at Tr. 27:19–29:14.) Plaintiffs have not provided authorization, permission or consent to VidAngel to copy or publicly perform the Copyrighted Works, or to exercise any other rights affecting their copyrights with respect to the Copyrighted Works. (Compl. ¶ 29.)

On June 9, 2016, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendants. (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1.) On July 5, 2016, Defendants filed an answer and counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 11.) On August 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 27) On September 16, 2016, Defendants filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, as well as First Amended Counterclaims. (Dkt. No. 77.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Injunctive relief is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be issued upon a clear showing that plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council , 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and the rights of the parties until a final judgment on the merits can be rendered. U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V. , 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish that they are (1) likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).

Alternatively, " ‘serious questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support the issuance of an injunction," provided that the plaintiff also shows irreparable harm and that the injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell , 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) ; A "serious question" is one on which the movant "has a fair chance of success on the merits." Sierra On–Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc. , 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984).

The elements of this test are "balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another." Alliance for the Wild Rockies , 622 F.3d 1045, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the applicant must demonstrate that immediate or imminent irreparable harm is likely: "Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction. A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief." Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige , 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Caiz v. Roberts
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 15 Diciembre 2016
  • Gateway City Church v. Newsom
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 29 Enero 2021
    ...relevance to this proceeding. Such issues, however, properly go to weight rather than admissibility." Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. , 224 F. Supp. 3d 957, 966 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff'd , 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles , 119 ......
  • Go Daddy Operating Co. v. United Statesman Ghaznavi, Case No. 17-cv-06545-PJH
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 28 Febrero 2018
    ...Second, "the Federal Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to preliminary injunction proceedings." Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 957, 966 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff'd, 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1363 ......
  • Disney Enters., Inc. v. Vidangel, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 6 Marzo 2019
    ...Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and the Ninth Circuit's Opinion affirming it. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. , 224 F.Supp.3d 957, 964 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (" Disney I " or " PI Order"), aff'd , 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) (" Disney II ).Plaintiffs produce and di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 3.02 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Intellectual Property and Computer Crimes Title Chapter 3 Federal Statutes that Protect Creative Works
    • Invalid date
    ...users to access and record protected content.").[68] 273 F.3d 429, 444 (2d Cir. 2001).[69] Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. 224 F. Supp. 3d 957, 967 (C.D. Cal. 2016).[70] Actuate Corp. v. IBM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33095 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010).[71] Id. at *25.[72] Id. at *26.[73......
  • Watch What You *bleeping* Want: Interpretation of Statutes Dealing With Advancing Technology in Light of the Ninth Circuit Case of "disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Vidangel, Inc."
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 25-2, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...filtered in certain cases.14. Id. at 12. 15. Id.16. Id. at 12-13.17. Id. at 13.18. Id.19. Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 957, 963-64 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff'd, 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017).20. Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017).21. Ho......
  • Copyright News
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 43-3, September 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...Proposed to be Filed under Seal VidAngel's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 224 F.Supp.3d 957 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (2:16-cv-04109).7. Id.8. 17 U.S.C. § 110 (11).9. Disney Enters. v. VidAngel, 869 F.3d 848, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2017).10. Id.11.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT