224 F. Supp. 3d 957
C.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (major studios) produce copyrighted films/TV and use CSS/AACS/BD+ to control access and window digital distribution/licensing.
- VidAngel purchased physical DVDs, decrypted them with commercial software, created intermediate/fragmented digital files, tagged and reassembled them to stream edited (filtered) versions to subscribers, and offered a buy/sellback scheme for the discs.
- VidAngel streamed Plaintiffs’ works without license, including titles subject to exclusive license windows, and required users to apply at least one filter to view content.
- Plaintiffs sued under the DMCA §1201(a) (anti‑circumvention) and Copyright Act §106 (reproduction and public performance), and moved for a preliminary injunction.
- The court held Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, found imminent irreparable harm, that equities and public interest favor injunction, and issued a preliminary injunction with a $250,000 bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VidAngel circumvented technological measures in violation of DMCA §1201(a) | VidAngel decrypted CSS/AACS/BD+ on DVDs/Blu‑rays without authorization | VidAngel argued decryption was lawful space‑shifting/reformatting and FMA shielded filtering | Court: VidAngel likely violated §1201(a); space‑shifting and FMA do not authorize circumvention |
| Whether VidAngel’s digital copies infringe Plaintiffs’ exclusive reproduction right (§106(1)) | VidAngel makes and stores digital copies/fragments on servers and RAM, enabling reproduction | VidAngel claimed fragments were non‑fixed “intermediate” copies not within §106(1) | Court: Copies are reproductions (permanent/cloud/RAM and perceptible with VidAngel’s software); likely infringement |
| Whether streaming by VidAngel constitutes public performance (§106(4)) | Streaming from VidAngel’s master copies to subscribers is a public transmission competing with licensees | VidAngel claimed users effectively own the disc and Aereo permits individualized transmissions | Court: Transmission to commercial subscribers is a public performance; Aereo and ownership argument do not shield VidAngel |
| Whether VidAngel’s use is fair use | VidAngel claimed filtering is transformative, noncommercial in effect, and reduces market harm | Plaintiffs argued use is commercial, non‑transformative, copies substantial heart of works, harms market | Court: Fair use factors weigh against VidAngel; defense unlikely to succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (flexible preliminary injunction balancing; serious questions standard)
- 321 Studios v. MGM Studios, 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (no space‑shifting exemption to DMCA circumvention)
- Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) (purchase of DVD does not authorize circumvention of DVD encryption)
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (loading into RAM/computer can implicate reproduction right)
- Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (intermediate copying addressed under reproduction analysis)
- Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) (individualized transmissions can be public performances)
- Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. WTV Sys., 824 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (service streaming DVD content without license infringed public performance right)
- CleanFlicks of Colo., LLC v. Soderbergh, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2006) (editing films for private viewers not transformative fair use)
- Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (commercial use presumes against fair use)