`
`
`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 BENNETT (SBN 302090)
`Allyson.Bennett@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`Tel: (213) 683-9100
`Fax: (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,
`
`vs.
`VIDANGEL, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.
`COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
`INFRINGEMENT AND
`VIOLATION OF DIGITAL
`MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2
`
`
`Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Disney”), Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC
`(“Lucasfilm”), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”), and Warner Bros.
`Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.”) (“Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned
`counsel, hereby bring this Complaint against VidAngel, Inc. (“Defendant” or
`“VidAngel”) for infringing Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act (17
`U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) and for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`(§ 1201 et seq.) (“DMCA”). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 17 U.S.C. §§ 501(b), 1203(a). Plaintiffs allege, on
`personal knowledge as to themselves and information and belief as to others, as
`follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`VidAngel operates a video-on-demand (“VOD”) service that streams
`popular movies and television shows. VidAngel charges users for watching that
`content but has no authorization and pays nothing for the rights it exploits. At its
`core, VidAngel is no different from many other unlawful online services. Plaintiffs
`bring this action to stop VidAngel’s infringement of their rights.
`2.
`VidAngel’s VOD service looks and feels very similar to licensed
`services such as Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes. Users can search for copyrighted motion
`picture content by popularity, genre or categories (e.g., “New Releases”):
`
`
`
`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
`
`- 1 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3
`
`
`And, like these other services, VidAngel streams movies via computer, mobile
`device (e.g., a smartphone, iPad, or tablet), or internet-connected television (e.g.,
`through Apple TV, Chromecast or Roku).
`3.
`But there is a fundamental difference between VidAngel and licensed
`VOD services: VidAngel does not have permission to copy Plaintiffs’ movies and
`television shows or to stream them to VidAngel’s users. Instead, VidAngel appears
`to circumvent the technological protection measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs to
`create unauthorized copies and then uses those copies to stream Plaintiffs’ works to
`the public without authorization.
`4.
`By running this service without a license, VidAngel blatantly violates
`the Copyright Act and confers on itself unfair and unlawful advantages vis-à-vis
`licensed services in the VOD marketplace. First, by cutting out payments to
`copyright owners, VidAngel is able to offer prices that undercut licensed services
`and charge only $1 for daily access to movies in standard definition format.
`VidAngel emphatically touts its below-market pricing:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`Second, because VidAngel absolves itself of having to abide by
`contractual restrictions, VidAngel offers content that is not available on licensed
`VOD services. For example, VidAngel makes many newly released titles available
`
`- 2 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4
`
`
`for streaming well before they are available via licensed VOD services. Recently,
`VidAngel exploited this competitive advantage to offer Star Wars: The Force
`Awakens for $1 a day at a time when lawful VOD services did not yet have the right
`to offer that work for single-day access at all:
`
`
`
`
`
`VidAngel also flaunts this unfair competitive advantage by expressly promoting a
`selection of titles that are available on VidAngel but “Not Available on Netflix”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`VidAngel publicly defends its unlicensed activities with legally and
`factually false claims. For example, VidAngel insists that it has the right to bypass
`copyright owner consent because VidAngel says it is “selling,” not renting, movies
`
`- 3 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:5
`
`
`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
`
`to its users. It does not matter whether VidAngel sells or rents movies. In either
`case, VidAngel would need copyright owner consent to circumvent access controls
`on protected discs, make copies of that content, and stream performances of the
`content to the public. VidAngel does not have consent to do any of these things.
`And, VidAngel is not “selling” movies. VidAngel is simply providing an
`unauthorized dollar-a-day VOD rental service.
`7.
`VidAngel also asserts that the Family Movie Act of 2005 (“FMA”)
`justifies its unlicensed activities because VidAngel offers its users the ability to skip
`and mute words and images that VidAngel thinks its users may find objectionable.
`The FMA does not justify VidAngel’s violation of Plaintiffs’ rights. The FMA
`narrowly permits technology that “mak[es] imperceptible,” at a home user’s
`direction, limited portions of content during playback “from an authorized copy” of a
`motion picture. 17 U.S.C. § 110(11). Nothing in the FMA gives VidAngel the right
`to copy or publicly perform Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content without authorization.
`Nor does the FMA give VidAngel the right to circumvent the technological
`protection measures on DVDs and Blu-ray discs that safeguard access to Plaintiffs’
`content. This Complaint does not challenge the FMA or businesses acting lawfully
`under it. This Complaint does challenge VidAngel’s operation of a business that
`goes far beyond conduct allowed under the FMA and that is based on the unlawful
`exploitation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`THE PARTIES
`8.
`Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation duly incorporated
`under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
`Burbank, California. Disney owns and controls the copyrights and exclusive rights
`in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute (“Disney’s Copyrighted
`Works”).
`9.
`Disney has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the
`Copyrighted Works. The attached Exhibit A includes several of Disney’s
`
`- 4 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6
`
`
`Copyrighted Works, along with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has
`infringed and continues to infringe.
`10. Plaintiff Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC is a limited liability corporation duly
`incorporated under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of
`business in San Francisco, California. Lucasfilm owns and controls the copyrights
`and exclusive rights in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute
`(“Lucasfilm’s Copyrighted Works”).
`11. Lucasfilm has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the
`Copyrighted Works. Exhibit A includes several of Lucasfilm’s Copyrighted Works,
`along with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has infringed and continues to
`infringe.
`12. Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a corporation duly
`incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
`business in Los Angeles, California. Fox owns and controls the copyrights and
`exclusive rights in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute (“Fox’s
`Copyrighted Works”).
`13. Fox has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the
`Copyrighted Works. Exhibit A includes several of Fox’s Copyrighted Works, along
`with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has infringed and continues to
`infringe.
`14. Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is a corporation duly
`incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
`business in Burbank, California. Warner Bros. owns and controls the copyrights and
`exclusive rights in the content that it or its affiliates produce or distribute (“Warner
`Bros.’ Copyrighted Works”).
`15. Warner Bros. has obtained Certificates of Copyright Registration for the
`Copyrighted Works. Exhibit A includes several of Warner Bros.’ Copyrighted
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:7
`
`
`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
`
`Works, along with their registration numbers, that VidAngel has infringed and
`continues to infringe.
`16. Defendant VidAngel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`place of business at 249 N. University Ave. Provo, Utah 84601. VidAngel also has
`offices in California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Complaint pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 17 U.S.C. §§ 501(b), 1203(a).
`18. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
`1400(a).
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`Plaintiffs and Their Copyrighted Works
`19. Plaintiffs or their affiliates produce or distribute some of the most
`popular and critically acclaimed motion pictures and television shows in the world.
`20. For Disney, this copyrighted content includes motion pictures produced
`by Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar and Marvel Studios, LLC. Disney or its affiliates
`own and distribute television programming developed by or for ABC as well as other
`networks, including, the Disney Channels, Free Form, and ESPN.
`21. For Lucasfilm, this copyrighted content includes the motion pictures and
`television programming it has produced.
`22. For Fox, this copyrighted content includes motion pictures produced by
`Twentieth Century Fox and Fox 2000, Fox Searchlight Pictures, and Twentieth
`Century Fox Animation. Fox or its affiliates own and distribute television
`programming developed by Twentieth Century Fox Television and Fox21 Television
`Studios for broadcast networks including FOX, FX, ABC, CBS, NBC and TBS, as
`well as for cable networks, including, FX, Showtime, and A&E.
`23. For Warner Bros., this copyrighted content includes motion pictures
`produced by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and its predecessors, its production
`
`- 6 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:8
`
`
`partners, and its affiliates. Warner Bros. or its affiliates produce or distribute
`television programming developed by, among others, Warner Bros. Television, for
`broadcast networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and The CW, as well as for cable
`networks and VOD providers such as Netflix.
`24. Plaintiffs have produced and distribute some of the most popular
`copyrighted works today and historically.
`a. Some of Disney’s well-known feature-length motion pictures include
`Inside Out (2015), Big Hero 6 (2014), Frozen (2013), Toy Story 3 (2010),
`Up (2009), WALL-E (2008), Finding Nemo (2003), Monsters, Inc. (2001),
`The Lion King (1994), Aladdin (1992) and Beauty and the Beast (1991).
`b. Some of Lucasfilm’s well-known feature-length motion pictures include
`Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of
`the Crystal Skull (2008), Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
`(2005), Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Cones (2002), Star Wars:
`Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) and Indiana Jones and the Last
`Crusade (1989).
`c. Some of Fox’s well-known feature-length motion pictures include The
`Martian (2015), The Revenant (2015), The Peanuts Movie (2015), Life of
`Pi (2013), Avatar (2009), Mrs. Doubtfire (2003), Ice Age (2002),
`Independence Day (2000) and Home Alone (1990).
`d. Some of Warner Bros.’ well-known feature-length motion pictures
`include San Andreas (2015), The Intern (2015), Gravity (2013), Man of
`Steel (2013), ARGO (2012), The Dark Knight (2008), Harry Potter and
`the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) and The Iron Giant (1999).
`VidAngel currently offers each of these movies, as well as television shows and
`numerous other of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, for VOD streaming.
`
`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
`
`- 7 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:9
`
`
`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
`
`25. Plaintiffs have invested (and continue to invest) substantial resources
`and effort each year to develop, produce, distribute and publicly perform their
`Copyrighted Works.
`26. Plaintiffs own and have the exclusive U.S. rights (among others) to
`reproduce and publicly perform their Copyrighted Works, including by means of
`streaming those works over the internet to the public.
`27. Plaintiffs distribute and publicly perform their Copyrighted Works in
`various formats and through multiple distribution channels, including: for exhibition
`in theaters; through television broadcasts; through cable and direct-to-home satellite
`services (including basic, premium, “pay-per-view” and VOD services); and through
`authorized, licensed internet VOD services such as Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Google
`Play, Amazon Video and VUDU. Plaintiffs also distribute their works to the home
`viewing market, including on DVDs and Blu-ray discs.
`28. Disney also owns and operates Disney Movies Anywhere, Disney’s
`platform that enables consumers to access Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm titles
`across digital video platforms and devices using their accounts with participating
`licensed internet video services.
`29. 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.
`VidAngel’s Unlawful Service
`30. VidAngel operates a VOD streaming service located online at
`http://www.vidangel.com and available through a mobile application, which users
`can download and use on their internet-connected smartphones, tablets and
`televisions. In addition to streaming movies and television shows, VidAngel offers
`users who want to skip or mute content within certain categories the ability to select
`filter settings that will make such content imperceptible during playback. VidAngel
`users must select at least one category to filter. As discussed below, however, the
`
`- 8 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10
`
`
`single category can include the opening or closing credits, thus allowing VidAngel to
`stream essentially the entire movie unfiltered.
`31. VidAngel accomplishes the very core of its service—copying and
`streaming copyrighted motion picture content—by violating copyright law and
`Plaintiffs’ rights. VidAngel obtains the Copyrighted Works it streams by apparently
`circumventing technological protection measures designed to prevent unauthorized
`access to and copying of the copyrighted content on DVDs and Blu-ray discs.
`VidAngel then copies that protected content and streams the Copyrighted Works
`from those unauthorized copies, by internet transmissions, to members of the public.
`VidAngel’s justifications for its blatant infringing conduct are without merit.
`VidAngel Circumvents Technological Protection Measures to Access and
`Copy Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works
`32. DVDs and Blu-ray discs are optical discs that contain recorded material
`in digital form. Each type of disc includes technological protection measures (or
`“TPMs”) that protect against unauthorized access to and copying of the copyrighted
`content that is encrypted on those discs. The TPMs that protect Plaintiffs’ content on
`DVDs and Blu-ray discs include the Content Scramble System (for DVDs) and the
`Advanced Access Content System and/or BD+ (for Blu-ray discs).
`33. The TPMs protect audiovisual content on DVDs and Blu-ray discs
`through the use of encryption and keys embedded in the content recorded on the
`physical discs. Licensing organizations control access to the TPM technologies, so
`as to secure authorized playback of content on DVDs or Blu-ray discs and so as not
`to permit unauthorized access to or copying of copyrighted content. These licensing
`and technology systems allow copyright owners to distribute their content on DVDs
`or Blu-ray discs, while limiting unauthorized copying or redistribution of that
`content. The TPMs effectively control access to copyrighted content on DVDs and
`Blu-ray discs, respectively.
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11
`
`
`34. VidAngel circumvents the TPMs on DVD and Blu-ray discs to access
`Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works for the purpose of copying those works and has no
`authorization to do so. VidAngel’s circumvention of the TPMs violates Section 1201
`of the DMCA.
`VidAngel’s Unauthorized Copying and Streaming to the Public of Plaintiffs’
`Copyrighted Content
`35. After circumventing the TPMs, VidAngel makes unauthorized digital
`copies of the works on the underlying DVD and Blu-ray discs and uses the
`unauthorized copies to transmit performances of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works to
`members of the public.
`36. VidAngel markets itself as transmitting performances of copyrighted
`works, through VOD streaming, to members of the public:
`
`
`
`
`
`37. VidAngel’s unauthorized copying and streaming of the Copyrighted
`Works violates Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to reproduce and publicly perform the
`Copyrighted Works under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (4).
`VidAngel’s Efforts to Characterize Its Service as Legitimate Fail
`38. VidAngel offers two fictions to justify its unlicensed VOD service.
`Both are meritless.
`
`- 10 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:12
`
`
`(a) VidAngel’s “Sale” Fiction Does Not Justify its Illegal VOD
`Service
`39. VidAngel claims its service is legal because it is selling, not renting,
`content to its users. Indeed, VidAngel publicly admits that it would be illegal for it
`to offer a VOD “rental” service without authorization from copyright owners.1 But
`VidAngel is wrong that the sale/rental distinction makes a difference. In either case,
`VidAngel would need to obtain copyright owner authorization to decrypt
`copyrighted content on protected discs, to copy that content, and to stream that
`content to the public.
`40. VidAngel nevertheless perpetrates the fiction that it is “selling” discs to
`its users in the first place. VidAngel itself explains the “buy and sellback”
`transaction in terms that highlight the fact it is charging users as little as a dollar a
`day for temporary VOD access to popular movies and television shows. The
`following screenshot and language from a “how-to” use VidAngel video posted right
`on the service’s homepage show that the purported “sale” is a gimmick:
`
`In 15 seconds, here’s how VidAngel lets
`you watch movies for one dollar. You buy
`a movie for 20 dollars. Don’t worry, it ends
`up being one dollar. Since you own the
`movie, you can legally set your filters. Now
`watch your movie. Then, with the click of a
`button, sell it back to us for 19 dollars of
`credit. That means each movie is only one
`dollar. It’s that simple. Buy for 20, set
`filters, watch it, sell it back for 19. Enjoy
`your one dollar movie.2
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1 VidAngel’s “How To” page includes the following question and response: “Why
`can’t I just rent movies? It is not legal for VidAngel to rent movies to you.”
`2 www.vidangel.com
`
`- 11 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:13
`
`
`VidAngel, by its own “don’t worry” assurance, confesses to its users (and the
`world) that VidAngel is providing a dollar-a-day VOD rental service.
`41. Although VidAngel purports to “sell” copyrighted content, it
`discourages users from “keeping” the content they purportedly “purchase.” Before
`watching a movie or television show, the user can check a box to “Auto-Sellback”
`after he or she has finished watching the content:
`
`
`
`If the VidAngel user does not select the “Auto-Sellback” option, a popup message
`appears when the user has finished his or her viewing; the popup encourages the
`user to “SELL BACK NOW” for the daily price. VidAngel’s “Buy, Watch, Sell
`Back” is a fiction that fails to hide VidAngel’s real business: providing a VOD
`streaming service to users in return for a daily fee.
`42. VidAngel’s offering of individual episodes of television shows further
`evidences “Buy, Watch, Sell Back” to be a complete fiction. Plaintiffs distribute
`entire seasons of television shows, rather than individual episodes, on DVDs or Blu-
`ray discs. Therefore, VidAngel cannot actually be “selling” a disc containing
`television programming to its users when it offers to stream television shows on a
`per-episode basis only—a method not available on DVD or Blu-ray products.
`43. Regardless of the label, VidAngel is running an unlicensed VOD
`streaming service. When a user requests that VidAngel stream a movie or television
`show, VidAngel streams (without authorization) the underlying copyrighted content
`from a digital copy that VidAngel made (without authorization). At all relevant
`
`- 12 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:14
`
`
`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
`
`times, VidAngel, not the user, has dominion and control over the digital copy and (to
`the extent it still exists) whatever physical DVD or Blu-ray disc VidAngel used to
`access and copy the content in the first instance. VidAngel needs, and does not have,
`Plaintiffs’ authorization to copy and stream their content.
`(b) VidAngel Cannot Use The Family Movie Act to Justify its
`Illegal Streaming Service
`44. The FMA does not shield VidAngel’s unlicensed service. The FMA
`provides that one does not infringe copyright by (a) “making imperceptible, by or at
`the direction of a member of a private household … limited portions” of motion
`picture content “during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private
`home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture”; or (b) creating or
`providing computer technology that enables lawful making-imperceptible activity.
`17 U.S.C. § 110(11). But, the FMA does not “impact[] established doctrines of
`copyright.” 151 Cong. Rec. S501 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2005) (Sen. Hatch). The FMA
`requires that any copy or performance made pursuant to that statute be otherwise
`“authorized”—that is, not violating the copyright owner’s other exclusive rights. 17
`U.S.C. § 110(11). Likewise, the FMA does not sanction the circumvention of the
`TPMs that protect access to the copyrighted content on DVDs or Blu-ray discs. See
`151 Cong. Rec. at S502 (FMA does not allow circumvention “for the purpose of
`engaging in the conduct covered by” the FMA).
`45. VidAngel is not “mak[ing] imperceptible . . . limited portions” of
`motion picture content in the course of an otherwise lawful transmission. 17 U.S.C.
`§ 110(11). Rather, VidAngel provides on-demand access to the motion picture itself,
`without any authorization to do so. Nothing in the FMA authorizes such conduct.
`46. VidAngel also permits users to watch essentially unfiltered movies and
`television shows by selecting to filter just the credits and nothing more. If a user
`wants to watch an unfiltered version of the content, he or she can do so through
`VidAngel with minimal effort and at a fraction of the price charged by licensed
`
`- 13 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:15
`
`
`services. Indeed, some people already have started to make social media postings
`touting the fact they can use VidAngel to watch movies and television shows
`essentially unfiltered; as VidAngel continues to grow, more and more current and
`potential users will be encouraged to use the service in the same way:
`
`
`
`47. VidAngel did not always offer its filtering service through its current
`infringing model. VidAngel originally distributed an internet web browser “plug-in”
`that muted and skipped content as it was streamed from other services—notably,
`Google Play, which is authorized to provide Plaintiffs’ content. Presumably,
`VidAngel altered its business model to profit directly from the unlawful copying and
`exploitation of the Copyrighted Works at the expense of Plaintiffs and their
`relationships with streaming service licensees—authorized services that are being
`undercut by VidAngel’s unauthorized service.
`VidAngel’s Conduct Causes Immediate and Irreparable Harm
`48. VidAngel currently claims to have more than 1,500 titles available for
`streaming and claims to be adding motion pictures at a rate of 60 per week.
`VidAngel intends to offer streaming of all new movies that have received more than
`$10 million in domestic sales.
`49.
`If left unabated, VidAngel will undermine Plaintiffs’ relationships with
`their authorized licensees and interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to negotiate with those
`legitimate VOD services. Because VidAngel cuts out payments to copyright owners
`for the rights it exploits, VidAngel is able to undercut licensed services, which pay
`
`- 14 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:16
`
`
`for the same content. VidAngel explicitly advertises itself as a way to “Save on
`Popular New Releases” compared to licensed VOD services:
`
`
`
`50. Public media outlets have picked up on VidAngel’s ability to undercut
`the pricing of authorized distributors. One online review noted the price comparison:
`“Even if you turn the filter entirely off, it’s the cheapest streaming rental out there,
`and about the same as Redbox, without the hassle of going to the store, or
`remembering to return the disc.”3
`51.
`If VidAngel continues offering performances of copyrighted content not
`yet available on authorized streaming services, VidAngel also will interfere with
`Plaintiffs’ ability to distribute their content, including through authorized licensees or
`other legitimate distribution channels. VidAngel offers an entire category of movies
`and television programs, including many of the Copyrighted Works, that are “Not on
`Netflix.” As described above, VidAngel recently advertised that it offers Star Wars:
`The Force Awakens for $1 per day when that title was not available for single-day
`rental elsewhere. Licensed VOD services, in contrast, often are not authorized to
`offer single-day “rentals” until weeks after VidAngel offers such access for the same
`titles.
`
`
`3 “Rent Edited Streaming ‘Clean Flicks’ – A Review of VidAngel’s New Edited
`Movie Service,” Mormon Life Hacker (Jun. 9, 2015) available at <
`http://mormonlifehacker.com/rent-edited-streaming-clean-flicks-review-vidangel-
`movie-service/>.
`
`- 15 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:17
`
`
`52. VidAngel’s circumvention of the TPMs and its making unauthorized
`copies undermines Plaintiffs’ ability to negotiate for quality controls in the
`dissemination of their copyrighted content.
`53. By characterizing VidAngel as a legitimate and lawful alternative to
`licensed online services, VidAngel threatens to confuse consumers and the public
`and drive up early and immediate adoption of the VidAngel service by numerous
`additional end users.
`54. VidAngel’s unlawful conduct and unfair competition with licensed
`distribution channels causes Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm. Unless
`enjoined, VidAngel’s illegal actions will continue.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), (4))
`55. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every averment
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 inclusive.
`56. VidAngel infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to copy and make public
`performances of the Copyrighted Works, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (4).
`57. VidAngel does not have Plaintiffs’ authorization to make digital copies
`of the Copyrighted Works.
`58. VidAngel does not have Plaintiffs’ authorization to publicly perform the
`Copyrighted Works.
`59. VidAngel’s acts of infringement are willful, in disregard of and with
`indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.
`60. As a direct and proximate result of the infringements by VidAngel,
`Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and VidAngel’s profits in amounts to be proven at
`trial.
`
`61. Alternatively, at their election, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory
`damages, up to the maximum amount of $150,000 per statutory award by virtue of
`
`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
`
`- 16 -
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA Document 1 Filed 06/09/16 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:18
`
`
`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
`
`VidAngel’s willful infringement, or for such other amounts as may be proper under
`17 U.S.C. § 504.
`62. Plaintiffs further are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and full
`costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`63. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and conduct,
`Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain substantial, immediate and
`irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined
`and restrained by this Court, VidAngel will continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ rights in
`their Copyrighted Works. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C.
`§ 502.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq.)
`64. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every averment
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 inclusive.
`65. Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA provides in pertinent part that
`“[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
`access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).
`66. Plaintiffs use TPMs to effectively control access to, and to protect the
`exclusive rights of copyright in, motion pictures, television programs, and other
`works protected by the Copyright Act.
`67. On information and belief, VidAngel circumvents the TPMs of the
`DVD and Blu-ray discs containing the Copyrighted Works, and, therefore, VidAngel
`has violated 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).
`68. This circumvention in viola