`
`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