throbber
Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 30 PageID# 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Case No.
`
`1:18cv950
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, ARISTA
`MUSIC, ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, LAFACE
`RECORDS LLC, PROVIDENT LABEL GROUP,
`LLC, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN,
`VOLCANO ENTERTAINMENT III, LLC, ZOMBA
`RECORDINGS LLC, SONY/ATV MUSIC
`PUBLISHING LLC, EMI AL GALLICO MUSIC
`CORP., EMI ALGEE MUSIC CORP., EMI APRIL
`MUSIC INC., EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC INC.,
`COLGEMS-EMI MUSIC INC., EMI CONSORTIUM
`MUSIC PUBLISHING INC. D/B/A EMI FULL KEEL
`MUSIC, EMI CONSORTIUM SONGS, INC.,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A EMI LONGITUDE
`MUSIC, EMI FEIST CATALOG INC., EMI MILLER
`CATALOG INC., EMI MILLS MUSIC, INC., EMI
`UNART CATALOG INC., EMI U CATALOG INC.,
`JOBETE MUSIC CO. INC., STONE AGATE MUSIC,
`SCREEN GEMS-EMI MUSIC INC., STONE
`DIAMOND MUSIC CORP., ATLANTIC
`RECORDING CORPORATION, BAD BOY
`RECORDS LLC, ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT
`GROUP INC., FUELED BY RAMEN LLC,
`NONESUCH RECORDS INC., ROADRUNNER
`RECORDS, INC., WARNER BROS. RECORDS
`INC., WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
`WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP., WB
`MUSIC CORP., W.B.M. MUSIC CORP.,
`UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., RIGHTSONG MUSIC
`INC., COTILLION MUSIC, INC., INTERSONG
`U.S.A., INC., UMG RECORDINGS, INC., CAPITOL
`RECORDS, LLC, UNIVERAL MUSIC CORP.,
`UNIVERSAL MUSIC – MGB NA LLC,
`UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING INC.,
`UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING AB,
`UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING LIMITED,
`UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING MGB
`LIMITED., UNIVERSAL MUSIC – Z TUNES LLC,
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 30 PageID# 2
`
`UNIVERSAL/ISLAND MUSIC LIMITED,
`UNIVERSAL/MCA MUSIC PUBLISHING PTY.
`LIMITED, UNIVERSAL – POLYGRAM
`INTERNATIONAL TUNES, INC., UNIVERSAL –
`SONGS OF POLYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`UNIVERSAL POLYGRAM INTERNATIONAL
`PUBLISHING, INC., MUSIC CORPORATION OF
`AMERICA, INC. D/B/A UNIVERSAL MUSIC
`CORP., POLYGRAM PUBLISHING, INC.,
`RONDOR MUSIC INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND
`SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC.,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND COXCOM,
`LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music, Arista Records LLC, LaFace
`
`Records LLC, Provident Label Group, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment US Latin, Volcano
`
`Entertainment III, LLC, Zomba Recordings LLC, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, EMI Al
`
`Gallico Music Corp., EMI Algee Music Corp., EMI April Music Inc., EMI Blackwood Music
`
`Inc., Colgems-EMI Music Inc., EMI Consortium Music Publishing Inc. d/b/a EMI Full Keel
`
`Music, EMI Consortium Songs, Inc., individually and d/b/a EMI Longitude Music, EMI Feist
`
`Catalog Inc., EMI Miller Catalog Inc., EMI Mills Music, Inc., EMI Unart Catalog Inc., EMI U
`
`Catalog Inc., Jobete Music Co. Inc., Stone Agate Music, Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc., Stone
`
`Diamond Music Corp., Atlantic Recording Corporation, Bad Boy Records LLC, Elektra
`
`Entertainment Group Inc., Fueled By Ramen LLC, Nonesuch Records Inc., Roadrunner
`
`Records, Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc., Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Warner-Tamerlane
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 3 of 30 PageID# 3
`
`Publishing Corp., WB Music Corp., W.B.M. Music Corp., Unichappell Music Inc., Rightsong
`
`Music Inc., Cotillion Music, Inc., Intersong U.S.A., Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol
`
`Records, LLC, Universal Music Corp., Universal Music – MGB NA LLC, Universal Music
`
`Publishing Inc., Universal Music Publishing AB, Universal Music Publishing Limited,
`
`Universal Music Publishing MGB Limited, Universal Music – Z Tunes LLC, Universal/Island
`
`Music Limited, Universal/MCA Music Publishing Pty. Limited, Universal – Polygram
`
`International Tunes, Inc., Universal – Songs of Polygram International, Inc., Universal
`
`Polygram International Publishing, Inc., Music Corporation of America, Inc. d/b/a Universal
`
`Music Corp., Polygram Publishing, Inc., Rondor Music International, Inc., and Songs of
`
`Universal, Inc., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint against Defendants Cox
`
`Communications, Inc. and CoxCom, LLC (collectively, “Cox” or “Defendants”), allege, on
`
`personal knowledge as to matters relating to themselves and on information and belief as to all
`
`other matters, as set forth below.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
` Plaintiffs are record companies that produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, and
`
`license commercial sound recordings, and music publishers that acquire, license, and otherwise
`
`exploit musical compositions, both in the United States and internationally. Through their
`
`enormous investments of not only money, but also time and exceptional creative efforts,
`
`Plaintiffs and their representative recording artists and songwriters have developed and
`
`marketed the world’s most famous and popular music. Plaintiffs own or control exclusive
`
`rights to the copyrights to some of the most famous sound recordings performed by classic
`
`artists and contemporary superstars, as well as the copyrights to large catalogs of iconic
`
`musical compositions and modern hit songs. Their investments and creative efforts have
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 4 of 30 PageID# 4
`
`shaped the musical landscape as we know it, both in the United States and around the world.
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`Cox is one of the largest Internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the country. It
`
`markets and sells high-speed Internet services to consumers nationwide. Through the provision
`
`of those services, however, Cox also has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial
`
`profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers,
`
`causing great harm to Plaintiffs, their recording artists and songwriters, and others whose
`
`livelihoods depend upon the lawful acquisition of music. Cox’s contribution to its subscribers’
`
`infringement is both willful and extensive, and renders Cox equally liable. Indeed, for years,
`
`Cox deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb its customers from using its
`
`Internet services to infringe on others’ copyrights—even once Cox became aware of particular
`
`customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement. Plaintiffs’ representatives (as
`
`well as others) sent hundreds of thousands of statutory infringement notices to Cox, under
`
`penalty of perjury, advising Cox of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Cox’s Internet
`
`service to illegally download, copy, and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted music through
`
`BitTorrent and other online file-sharing services. Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb
`
`this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of
`
`infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to
`
`any of its subscribers’ infringements that exceeded its “cap.”
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`Cox also claimed to have implemented a “thirteen-strike policy” before
`
`terminating service of repeat infringers but, in actuality, Cox never permanently terminated any
`
`subscribers. Instead, it lobbed “soft terminations” with virtually automatic reinstatement, or it
`
`simply did nothing at all. The reason for this is simple: rather than stop its subscribers’
`
`unlawful activity, Cox prioritized its own profits over its legal obligations. Cox’s profits
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 5 of 30 PageID# 5
`
`increased dramatically as a result of the massive infringement that it facilitated, yet Cox
`
`publicly told copyright holders that it needed to reduce the number of staff it had dedicated to
`
`anti-piracy for budget reasons.
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`Congress created a safe harbor in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`(“DMCA”) that limits the liability of ISPs for copyright infringement when their involvement
`
`is limited to, among other things, “transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material
`
`through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. §
`
`512(a). To benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, however, along with meeting other pre-
`
`conditions, an ISP must demonstrate that it “has adopted and reasonably implemented . . . a
`
`policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers . . . who are
`
`repeat infringers.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A).
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`Cox’s “thirteen-strike policy” has already been revealed to be a sham, and its
`
`ineligibility for the DMCA safe harbor—for the period of (at least) February 2012 through
`
`November 2014—has been fully and finally adjudicated by this Court and affirmed by the
`
`Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a related case, BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox
`
`Commc’ns, Inc. and CoxCom, LLC, 149 F. Supp. 3d 634, 662 (E.D. Va. 2015), aff’d in relevant
`
`part, 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018) (“BMG Rights”), this Court established, as a matter of law,
`
`that Cox could not invoke the DMCA safe harbor to limit its liability. Id. at 655-662.
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`Specifically, the Court concluded:
`
`Cox did not implement its repeat infringer policy. Instead, Cox publicly
`purported to comply with its policy, while privately disparaging and
`intentionally circumventing the DMCA’s requirements. Cox employees
`followed an unwritten policy put in place by senior members of Cox’s
`abuse group by which accounts used to repeatedly infringe copyrights
`would be nominally terminated, only to be reactivated upon request. Once
`these accounts were reactivated, customers were given clean slates,
`meaning the next notice of infringement Cox received linked to those
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 6 of 30 PageID# 6
`
`accounts would be considered the first in Cox’s graduated response
`procedure.
`
`Id. at 655. The Court further found that starting in September 2012, Cox abandoned its tacit
`
`policy of temporarily suspending and reactivating repeat infringers’ accounts, and instead
`
`stopped terminating accounts altogether. Id. at 655-58.
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`The Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s holding, explaining that although “Cox
`
`formally adopted a repeat infringer ‘policy,’ . . . both before and after September 2012, [Cox]
`
`made every effort to avoid reasonably implementing that policy. Indeed, in carrying out its
`
`thirteen-strike process, Cox very clearly determined not to terminate subscribers who in fact
`
`repeatedly violated the policy.” 881 F.3d at 303. The former head of Cox’s Abuse Group,
`
`Jason Zabek, summed up Cox’s sentiment toward its DMCA obligations best in an email
`
`exclaiming: “f the dmca!!!” Unsurprisingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s ruling,
`
`holding that “Cox failed to qualify for the DMCA safe harbor because it failed to implement its
`
`policy in any consistent or meaningful way—leaving it essentially with no policy.” Id. at 305.
`
`The BMG Rights decision that Cox is ineligible for the DMCA safe harbor from at least
`
`February 2012 through November 2014 controls here.
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`It is well-established law that a party may not assist someone it knows is
`
`engaging in copyright infringement. Further, when a party has a direct financial interest in the
`
`infringing activity, and the right and practical ability to stop or limit it, that party must act.
`
`Ignoring those basic responsibilities, Cox deliberately turned a blind eye to its subscribers’
`
`infringement. Cox failed to terminate or otherwise take meaningful action against the accounts
`
`of repeat infringers whose identities were known. It also blocked infringement notices for
`
`countless others. Despite its professed commitment to take action against repeat offenders,
`
`Cox routinely thumbed its nose at Plaintiffs by continuing to provide service to individuals it
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 7 of 30 PageID# 7
`
`knew to be serially infringing copyrighted works and refusing to even receive notice of any
`
`infringements above an arbitrary cap. In reality, Cox operated its service as an attractive tool,
`
`and as a safe haven, for infringement.
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`Cox has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’
`
`infringement. The unlimited ability to download and distribute Plaintiffs’ works through Cox’s
`
`service has served as a draw for Cox to attract, retain, and charge higher fees to subscribers.
`
`Moreover, by failing to terminate the accounts of specific recidivist infringers known to Cox,
`
`Cox obtained a direct financial benefit from its subscribers’ infringing activity in the form of
`
`illicit revenue that it would not have received had it shut down those accounts. Indeed, Cox
`
`affirmatively decided not to terminate infringers because it wanted to maintain the revenue that
`
`would come from their accounts.
`
`10.(cid:1)
`
`The infringing activity of Cox’s subscribers that is the subject of Plaintiffs’
`
`claims, and for which Cox is secondarily liable, occurred after Cox received multiple notices of
`
`a subscriber’s infringing activity. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek relief for claims of infringement
`
`that accrued from February 2013 through November 2014, with respect to works infringed by
`
`Cox’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Cox in multiple
`
`infringement notices. Those claims are preserved through tolling agreements entered into with
`
`Cox, and Cox cannot limit its liability for claims in this period under the DMCA safe harbor.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.(cid:1)
`
`This is a civil action in which Plaintiffs seek damages for copyright
`
`infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
`
`12.(cid:1)
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ copyright
`
`infringement claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 8 of 30 PageID# 8
`
`13.(cid:1)
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cox because Cox resides in and/or
`
`does systematic and continuous business in Virginia and in this judicial district. Cox provides a
`
`full slate of services in Virginia, including TV, Internet and phone services, among others. Cox
`
`also has a number of retail stores and customer service centers within this judicial district,
`
`including stores located at 5958 Kingstowne Town Ctr., Ste. 100, Alexandria, Virginia 22315
`
`and 11044 Lee Hwy, Suite 10, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 and 3080 Centerville Road, Herndon,
`
`Virginia 20171.
`
`14.(cid:1)
`
`Each of the Cox defendants has in the past been (or is presently) a party, as a
`
`plaintiff or a defendant, in this Court, including in the related case of BMG Rights Mgmt. (US)
`
`LLC v. Cox Commc’ns., Inc. and CoxCom, LLC, No. 14-cv-1611-LO-JFA.
`
`15.(cid:1)
`
`Cox continuously and systematically transacts business in the Commonwealth of
`
`Virginia and maintains sizable operations in Virginia—employing thousands of employees and
`
`providing an array of services to customers within the Commonwealth. Additionally, Cox has
`
`engaged in substantial activities purposefully directed at Virginia from which Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`arise, including, for instance, establishing significant network management operations in this
`
`district, employing individuals within Virginia who have responsibility for managing its
`
`network, enforcing subscriber use policies against violators, and/or responding to notices of
`
`infringement. Much of the conduct alleged in this Complaint arises directly from Cox’s forum-
`
`directed activities—specifically, repeated acts of infringement by specific subscribers using
`
`Cox’s network and Cox’s awareness of those activities, Cox’s receipt of and failure to act in
`
`response to Plaintiffs’ notices of infringement activity, and Cox’s failure to take reasonable
`
`measures to terminate repeat infringers.
`
`16.(cid:1) Many of the acts complained of herein occurred in Virginia and in this judicial
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 9 of 30 PageID# 9
`
`district. For example, a number of egregious repeat infringers, who are Cox subscribers, reside
`
`in and infringed Plaintiffs’ rights in Virginia and this judicial district.
`
`17.(cid:1)
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs have identified hundreds of Cox subscribers suspected of
`
`residing in Virginia, who have repeatedly infringed one or more of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
`
`works. For example, Cox subscriber account having IP address 216.54.125.50 at the time of
`
`the infringement, believed to be located east of Richmond, Virginia, was identified in
`
`infringement notices 97 times between November 15, 2013 and March 6, 2015. A different
`
`Cox subscriber believed to be located in Norfolk, Virginia, having IP address 72.215.154.66 at
`
`the time of infringement, also was identified in infringement notices 97 times between February
`
`6, 2013 and March 6, 2015. Yet another Cox subscriber having IP address 174.77.93.179,
`
`believed to be from Virginia Beach, was identified in infringement notices 34 times between
`
`February 8, 2013 and March 25, 2015.
`
`18.(cid:1)
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(a),
`
`because a substantial part of the acts of infringement, and other events and omissions
`
`complained of herein occur, or have occurred, in this district, and this is a district in which Cox
`
`resides or may be found.
`
`PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COPYRIGHTED MUSIC
`
`19.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiffs are the copyright owners of and/or control exclusive rights with
`
`respect to millions of sound recordings (i.e., recorded music) and/or musical works (i.e.,
`
`compositions), including many by some of the most prolific and well-known recording artists
`
`and songwriters in the world.
`
`20.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment (“Sony”) is a Delaware general partnership,
`
`the partners of which are citizens of New York and Delaware. Sony’s headquarters and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 10 of 30 PageID# 10
`
`principal place of business are located at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`21.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Arista Music (“Arista Music”) is a New York partnership with its
`
`principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`22.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Arista Records LLC (“Arista Records”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010.
`
`23.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff LaFace Records LLC (“LaFace”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010.
`
`24.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Provident Label Group, LLC (“Provident”) is a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 741 Cool Springs Boulevard,
`
`Franklin, Tennessee 37067.
`
`25.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment US Latin (“Sony Latin”) is a Delaware
`
`Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 3390 Mary St., Suite 220,
`
`Coconut Grove, Florida 33133.
`
`26.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Volcano Entertainment III, LLC (“Volcano”) is a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`27.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Zomba Recording LLC (“Zomba”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010.
`
`28.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Atlantic Recording Corporation (“Atlantic”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 11 of 30 PageID# 11
`
`29.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Bad Boy Records LLC (“Bad Boy”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`30.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. (“Elektra”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`31.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Fueled By Ramen LLC (“FBR”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`32.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Nonesuch Records Inc. (“Nonesuch”) is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`33.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Roadrunner Records, Inc. (“Roadrunner”) is a New York corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`34.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Warner Bros. Records Inc. (“WBR”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 3300 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, California 91505.
`
`35.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc. (“UMG”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`36.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Capitol Records, LLC (“Capitol Records”) is Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`37.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiffs Sony, Arista Music, Arista Records, LaFace, Provident, Sony Latin,
`
`Volcano, Zomba, Atlantic, Bad Boy, Elektra, FBR, Nonesuch, Roadrunner, WBR, UMG, and
`
`Capitol Records are referred to herein collectively as “The Record Company Plaintiffs.”
`
`38.(cid:1)
`
`The Record Company Plaintiffs are some of the largest record companies in the
`
`world, engaged in the business of producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, licensing, and
`
`otherwise exploiting sound recordings in the United States through various media. They invest
`
`substantial money, time, effort, and talent in creating, advertising, promoting, selling, and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 12 of 30 PageID# 12
`
`licensing sound recordings embodying the performances of their exclusive recording artists and
`
`their unique and valuable sound recordings.
`
`39.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC (“Sony/ATV”) is a Delaware
`
`Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New
`
`York, New York 10010.
`
`40.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Al Gallico Music Corp. (“EMI Al Gallico”), an affiliate of
`
`Sony/ATV, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue,
`
`Suite 1101, New York, New York 10016.
`
`41.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Algee Music Corp. (“EMI Algee”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New
`
`York, New York 10016.
`
`42.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI April Music Inc. (“EMI April”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101,
`
`New York, New York 10016.
`
`43.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Blackwood Music Inc. (“EMI Blackwood”), an affiliate of
`
`Sony/ATV, is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth
`
`Avenue, Suite 1101, New York, New York 10016.
`
`44.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Colgems-EMI Music Inc. (“EMI Colgems”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV,
`
`is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101,
`
`New York, New York 10016.
`
`45.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Consortium Music Publishing Inc. d/b/a EMI Full Keel Music
`
`(“EMI Full Keel”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New York corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New York, New York 10016.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 13 of 30 PageID# 13
`
`46.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Consortium Songs, Inc., individually and d/b/a EMI Longitude
`
`Music (“EMI Longitude”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New York corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New York, New York 10016.
`
`47.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Feist Catalog Inc. (“EMI Feist”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`New York corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101,
`
`New York, New York 10016.
`
`48.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Miller Catalog Inc. (“EMI Miller”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`New York corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101,
`
`New York, New York 10016.
`
`49.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Mills Music, Inc. (“EMI Mills”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New
`
`York, New York 10016.
`
`50.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI Unart Catalog Inc. (“EMI Unart”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`New York corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101,
`
`New York, New York 10016.
`
`51.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff EMI U Catalog Inc. (“EMI U”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New
`
`York corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New
`
`York, New York 10016.
`
`52.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Jobete Music Co. Inc. (“Jobete”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Michigan corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New
`
`York, New York 10016. Plaintiff Stone Agate Music (“Stone Agate”) is a division of Jobete.
`
`53.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc. (“Gems-EMI”), an affiliate of
`
`Sony/ATV, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 14 of 30 PageID# 14
`
`Suite 1101, New York, New York 10016.
`
`54.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Stone Diamond Music Corp. (“Stone”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Michigan corporation with its principal place of business at 245 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1101, New
`
`York, New York 10016.
`
`55.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. (“Warner/Chappell”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los
`
`Angeles, California 90025.
`
`56.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. (“Warner-Tamerlane”) is a
`
`California corporation with its principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard,
`
`Los Angeles, California 90025.
`
`57.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff WB Music Corp. (“WB Music”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025.
`
`58.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff W.B.M. Music Corp. (“W.B.M.”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025.
`
`59.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Unichappell Music Inc. (“Unichappell”) is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California
`
`90025.
`
`60.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Rightsong Music Inc. (“Rightsong Music”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California
`
`90025.
`
`61.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Cotillion Music, Inc. (“Cotillion”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025.
`
`62.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Intersong U.S.A., Inc. (“Intersong”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 15 of 30 PageID# 15
`
`principal place of business at 10585 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025.
`
`63.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Corp. (“UMC”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`64.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music – MGB NA LLC (“MGB”) is a California Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa
`
`Monica, California 90404.
`
`65.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing Inc. (“Universal Music Publishing”) is a
`
`California corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa
`
`Monica, California 90404.
`
`66.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing AB (“AB”) is a company organized under
`
`the laws of Sweden.
`
`67.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing Limited (“Publishing Limited”) is a
`
`company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales.
`
`68.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing MGB Limited (“MGB Limited”) is a
`
`company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales.
`
`69.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music – Z Tunes LLC (“Z Tunes”) is a California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica,
`
`California 90404.
`
`70.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal/Island Music Limited (“Island”) is a company incorporated
`
`under the laws of England and Wales.
`
`71.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal/MCA Music Publishing Pty. Limited (“MCA Limited”) is a
`
`company organized under the laws of the Australia.
`
`72.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal – Polygram International Tunes, Inc. (“Polygram
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 16 of 30 PageID# 16
`
`International”) is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado
`
`Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`73.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal – Songs of Polygram International, Inc. (“Songs of
`
`Polygram”) is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado
`
`Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`74.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Universal Polygram International Publishing, Inc. (“Polygram
`
`International Publishing”) is a California corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`75.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Music Corporation of America, Inc. d/b/a Universal Music Corp.
`
`(“Music Corp.”) is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 2100
`
`Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`76.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Polygram Publishing, Inc. (“Polygram Publishing”) is a California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica,
`
`California 90404.
`
`77.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Rondor Music International, Inc. (“Rondor”) is a California corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`78.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiff Songs of Universal, Inc. (“Songs of Universal”) is a California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica,
`
`California 90404.
`
`79.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiffs Sony/ATV, EMI Al Gallico, EMI Algee, EMI April, EMI Blackwood,
`
`EMI Colgems, EMI Full Keel, EMI Longitude, EMI Feist, EMI Miller, EMI Mills, EMI Unart,
`
`EMI U, Jobete, Stone Agate, Gems-EMI, Stone, Warner/Chappell, Warner-Tamerlane, WB
`
`Music, W.B.M., Unichappell, Rightsong Music, Cotillion, Intersong, UMC, MGB, Universal
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00950-LO-JFA Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 17 of 30 PageID# 17
`
`Music Publishing, AB, Publishing Limited, MGB Limited, Z Tunes, Island, MCA Limited,
`
`Polygram International, Songs of Polygram, Polygram International Publishing, Music Corp.,
`
`Polygram Publishing, Rondor, and Songs of Universal are referred to herein collectively as
`
`“The Music Publisher Plaintiffs.”
`
`80.(cid:1)
`
`The Music Publisher Plaintiffs are leading music publishers engaged in the
`
`business of acquiring, owning, publishing, licensing, and otherwise exploiting copyrighted
`
`musical compositions. Each invests substantial money, time, effort, and talent to acquire,
`
`administer, publish, license, and otherwise exploit such copyrights, on its own behalf and on
`
`behalf of songwriters and other music publishers who have assigned exclusive copyright
`
`interests to The Music Publisher Plaintiffs.
`
`81.(cid:1)
`
`Plaintiffs own and/or control in whole or in part the copyrights and/or exclusive
`
`rights in innumerable popular sound recordings and musical compositions, including the sound
`
`recordings listed on Exhibit A and musical compositions listed on Exhibit B, both of which are
`
`illustrative and non-exhaustive. All of the sound recordings and musical compositions listed on
`
`Exhibits A and B have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
`
`DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES
`
`82.(cid:1)
`
`Defendant Cox Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia. Cox
`
`Communications, Inc. operates as a broadband communications and entertainment company for
`
`residential and commer

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket