Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al v. VidAngel, Inc.

Filing 42

Submitted (ECF) Redacted Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant VidAngel, Inc.. Date of service: 01/11/2017. (Court-entered filing, brief originally submitted in [23].) [10287864] (WL) [Entered: 01/27/2017 01:41 PM]

No. 16-56843
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIDANGEL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,
v.
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC;
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION; AND
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Hon. André Birotte Jr.
No. 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Brendan S. Maher
Daniel L. Geyser
Douglas D. Geyser
STRIS & MAHER LLP
6688 N. Central Expy., Ste. 1650
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
January 11, 2016

Peter K. Stris
Elizabeth Rogers Brannen
Dana Berkowitz
Victor O’Connell
STRIS & MAHER LLP
725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1830
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant VidAngel, Inc.
(Additional counsel on signature page)

175603.6
175603.9

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Defendant-Appellant
VidAngel, Inc., hereby files its corporate disclosure statement as follows.
VidAngel, Inc. is a privately held corporation. It has no parent corporation and no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Dated: January 11, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Peter K. Stris
Peter K. Stris
[e-mail]
STRIS & MAHER LLP
725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1830
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

i
175603.9

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ...........................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................iv
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................................4
A.

Studio Control Over The Home Movie Market .................................... 4

B.

Studio Efforts To Thwart Home Movie Filtering .................................. 8

C.

The Founding And Growth Of VidAngel............................................10

D.

The Litigation ......................................................................................14

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................15
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................15
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................17
I.

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding The Studios
Demonstrated Likelihood Of Success On Their First Cause Of
Action: Copyright Infringement Under 17 U.S.C. § 106 ..............................17
A.

The FMA Authorizes Filtering That Satisfies Certain Conditions...... 17

B.

VidAngel’s Filtering Satisfies The FMA’s Conditions........................20
1.
2.

C.

The reproduction claim is unlikely to succeed .........................21
The public performance claim is unlikely to succeed .............. 23

VidAngel’s Service Is Also A Protected Fair Use ...............................26

ii
175603.9

II.

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding The Studios
Demonstrated Likelihood Of Success On Their Second Claim:
Access Control Circumvention Under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) .........................32
A.
B.

VidAngel Does Not Circumvent Access Control Protections
Because It Is Authorized By The Studios To Avoid Them.................. 35

C.

VidAngel Offers The Only Reading Of Section 1201(a) That
Can Be Reconciled With The FMA, A Later-Enacted Statute ............ 39

D.
III.

The DMCA Prohibits The Unauthorized Circumvention Of
Access Protections, Not Copy Protections ..........................................33

Any Technical Violation Of Section 1201(a) By VidAngel
Is A Protected Fair Use ........................................................................43

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding That The Studios
Demonstrated A Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm .........................................48
A.

Harm Must Be Proven, Not Presumed, And The Studios
Offered No Evidence That VidAngel’s Continued Operation
During The Litigation Was Likely To Cause Irreparable Harm.......... 48

B.

The Studios’ Year-Plus Delay Precludes A Preliminary
Injunction.............................................................................................52

IV.

The Balancing Of Hardships Requires Reversal ...........................................53

V.

The Injunction Harms The Public Interest ....................................................56

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................60
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ....................................................................61
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................61

iii
175603.9

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................53
Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo,
134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) .......................................................................24, 25, 26, 27
Amylin Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
456 F. App’x 676 (9th Cir. 2011) .........................................................................53
Apple Comput., Inc. v. Formula Int’l, Inc.,
725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled by Flexible Lifeline,
654 F.3d 989 (2011) .............................................................................................56
Benda v. Grand Lodge of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists
& Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1978) ...........................................57
Bethesda Softworks, LLC v. Interplay Entm’t Corp.,
452 F. App’x 351 (4th Cir. 2011) .........................................................................50
Brookfield Commc’ns v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................15
Cabell v. Markham,
148 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1945) .................................................................................41
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
510 U.S. 569 (1994) .......................................................................................30, 45
Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.,
536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................24, 26
Castle Rock Entm’t v. Carol Publ’g Grp.,
150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) .................................................................................44
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Aveco, Inc.,
800 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................24

iv
175603.9

Costar Grp., Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.,
373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................24
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................50, 51, 56
Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com,
LLC, 666 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................47
Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc.,
654 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................50, 51, 56
Folsom v. Marsh,
9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. Oct. 1, 1841)...........................................................44
Fox Broad. Co. v. Dish Network LLC,
160 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................25
Golan v. Holder,
132 S. Ct. 873 (2012) ...........................................................................................44
Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City of San Francisco,
512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................58
Huntsman v. Soderbergh,
No. 02-cv-1662, 2005 WL 1993421 (D. Colo. Aug. 17, 2005) ............................. 9
I.N.S. v. St. Cyr,
533 U.S. 289 (2001) .............................................................................................48
Int’l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc.,
4 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................56
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2002)................................................................................30
Los Angeles Mem. Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League,
634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) ..............................................................................56
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka,
581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) ..............................................................................36
v
175603.9

MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc.,
629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) .........................................................................passim
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States,
559 U.S. 229 (2010) .............................................................................................43
Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co.,
762 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1985) ..............................................................................54
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys.,
Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................28
Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP,
No. 08-cv-766, 2009 WL 2588748 (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2009) ................................. 7
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) ........................................................................58
Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) .......................................................50
Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.
1992), as amended (Jan. 6, 1993) ........................................................................28
Sony Comput. Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.,
203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................28
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
464 U.S. 417 (1984) ...................................................................................5, 31, 32
Stewart v. Abend,
495 U.S. 207 (1990) .......................................................................................28, 44
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky,
586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................55, 58
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co.,
64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) ...............................................................................56
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC,
718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................24
United States v. ASCAP,
627 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................25
vi
175603.9

United States v. Nosal,
676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................37
Watt v. Alaska,
451 U.S. 259 (1981) .............................................................................................44
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,
456 U.S. 305 (1982) .............................................................................................58
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
555 U.S. 7 (2008) ..........................................................................................passim
Statutes
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ......................................................................................47
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. ...............................................passim
17 U.S.C. § 106 .............................................................................................passim
17 U.S.C. § 106(1) .........................................................................................17, 21
17 U.S.C. § 106(4) .........................................................................................17, 24
Family Home Movie Act, 17 U.S.C. § 110(11) ................................................passim
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq............................passim
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) ......................................................................................passim
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) ...................................................................................36
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C) ...................................................................................45
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(D) ...................................................................................45
17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) ......................................................................................passim
17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1) ........................................................................................36
17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(2)(A) ...................................................................................36

vii
175603.9

17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1) .........................................................................................46
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) ...............................................................................................3
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................3
Other Authorities
11A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure (2d ed. 1995)
§ 2948.1 ..........................................................................................................49, 54
§ 2948.4 ................................................................................................................58
150 Cong. Rec. H7659 (Sept. 28, 2004) ..................................................................20
151 Cong. Rec. S450 (Jan 25, 2005) .......................................................................42
H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1 (1998) .......................................................................38
H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2 (1998) .......................................................................38
H.R. Rep. No. 109-33, pt. 1 (2005)................................................................9, 31, 40
S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) .....................................................................................37
65 Fed. Reg. 64568 (Oct. 27, 2000).........................................................................39
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearing on H.R. 4783,
H.R. 4794, H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705
Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Admin.
of Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong. 8 (1982) ....................... 4
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005,
Pub. L. No. 109-9, § 167, 119 Stat. 218, 223 (2005) ...........................................42
Family Movie Act of 2004, H.R. Rep. No. 4586,
108th Cong. § 2 (2004) ........................................................................................41
Family Movie Act of 2004: Hearing on H.R. 4586 Before the
Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, Intellectual Property of the
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 68 (2004)............................................40
viii
175603.9

Derivative Rights, Moral Rights, and Movie Filtering Technology:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Prop. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
108th Cong. 122 (2004) .............................................................................9, 31, 43
Brief for Petitioners, Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) (No. 13-461),
2014 WL 768315............................................................................................25, 27
Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners,
Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2013) (No.13-461), 2014 WL 828079 ..........................27
Transcript of Oral Argument, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (No. 04-480) ...........................................29
Brooks Barnes, Movie Studios See a Threat in Growth of Redbox,
N.Y. Times (Sept. 6, 2009) .................................................................................6, 7
Burk & Cohen, Fair Use Infrastructure for Rights Management
Systems, 15 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 41, 46 (2001)......................................................48
Chuck Tryon, Redbox vs. Red Envelope, Or What Happens When
The Infinite Aisle Swings Through The Grocery Store,
20 Canadian J. of Film Stud. 38, 41 (2011) ........................................................... 7
Dan Ackman, Movie Studios Get Hip with the Future,
Forbes (Aug. 17, 2001) ..........................................................................................5
David Waterman & Sung-Choon Lee, Time Consistency and the
Distribution of Theatrical Films: An Empirical Study of the
Video Window 8, 32 (Allied Soc. Sci. Ass’ns Annual Mtg.,
Working Paper, Jan. 2003) .....................................................................................6
DEG Year-End 2006 Home Entertainment Sales Update,
The Digital Entm’t Grp. (Jan. 8, 2007) .................................................................. 6
Derek Khanna, A Look Back at How the Content Industry Almost
Killed Blockbuster and Netflix (and the VCR),
TechCrunch (Dec. 27, 2013) .................................................................................. 5
Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, A History of Home Video and Video Game
Retailing: 2000-Present .....................................................................................6, 7
ix
175603.9

Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., The Death of Copyright: Digital Technology,
Private Copying, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
87 Va. L. Rev. 813 (2001) ....................................................................................47
Jane C. Ginsberg, Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet,
24 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 8 (2000) ..................................................................47
Jeffrey C. Ulin, The Business of Media Distribution:
Monetizing Film, TV and Video Content in an Online
World (2d ed. 2015)................................................................................................6
John McLaughlin, Episode of the McLaughlin Group
(Sept. 27, 2002) ......................................................................................................9
Martha A. Field, Sources of Law: The Scope of Federal Common
Law, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 881 (1986)........................................................................48
Matt Schruers, The Public Costs of Private Distribution Strategies:
Content Release Windows As Negative Externalities,
Project Disco (June 2, 2015) .................................................................................. 8
Michael Cornick, Modern Film Censorship: Television, Airlines,
and Home Entertainment 5 (2008) ........................................................................ 8
Mike Snider, DVDs Conquer the Movie World, USA Today
(updated Oct. 18, 2002) .........................................................................................6
Nelson Granados, Changes To Hollywood Release Windows Are
Coming Fast And Furious, Forbes (Apr. 8, 2015) ................................................. 8
Peter M. Nichols, Home Video, N.Y. Times (July 12, 1996) ..................................... 5
Press Release, DGA Responds and Counterclaims Against Robert
Huntsman and Clean Flicks; Adds Motion Picture Studios to
Suit, Directors Guild of America (Sept. 20, 2002) ................................................ 8
Press Release, Three Cheers! America Rents 3 Billionth Redbox
Disc, Redbox (July 30, 2013) ................................................................................ 7
Richard Cooper, Studios Settle Dispute with Redbox,
IHS Markit (May 12, 2010) ...................................................................................7
x
175603.9

Redbox Surpasses 100 Million DVD Rentals,
Kiosk Marketplace (Jan. 31, 2008) ........................................................................ 7
Rules
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) ....................................................... 3

xi
175603.9

INTRODUCTION
Filtering is the practice of removing mature content—such as sex and
violence—from movies. Streaming is the transmission of movies over the Internet.
VidAngel, Inc. (“VidAngel”) allows customers who buy physical DVDs or Blu-ray
movie discs (“discs”)—and thus have a right to view that movie—to create a
personalized, filtered stream to watch in their homes. Unfiltered streams are not
allowed, and the model is entirely disc-based and individualized. No stream is sent
to anyone other than the disc-owner, and all streams are filtered according to that
customer’s personal filtering preferences.
Everything VidAngel does is for the sole purpose of allowing a disc-owner
to watch a movie she owns the way she wants in her own home. Yet four
Hollywood studios (“Studios”) insist the Copyright Act prohibits what common
sense demands. The Studios persuaded the court below not only of that, but also
that tiny start-up VidAngel threatened irreparable harm to the richest entertainment
companies on Earth. The district court entered an injunction that forced VidAngel
to shut down, leaving millions of American families with no viable filtering option.
The injunction should be dissolved. There is no evidence of irreparable
harm. And there is no reason to believe the Studios are likely to prevail on the
merits of their Copyright Act claims.

1
175603.9

In 2005, over the Studio’s objections, Congress passed the Family Movie
Act, whose express purpose was to confer upon households the right to watch
filtered movies. Because that right arguably clashed with other rights granted to
copyright holders, Congress amended the Copyright Act to make plain its intent to
subordinate the latter to the former. See 17 U.S.C. § 110(11) (“Notwithstanding the
provisions

of

section

106,

the

following

are

not

infringements

of

copyright: * * * the creation or provision of a computer program or other
technology that enables [filtering] if no fixed copy of the altered version of the
motion picture is created * * * .”). Because VidAngel falls squarely within the
FMA safe harbor, the Studios’ first Copyright Act claim (infringement under
section 106) fails.
The Studios assert a second, and equally baseless, Copyright Act claim
(access control circumvention under section 1201). Section 1201 was intended to
stop pirates from unlawfully accessing content by prohibiting decryption of discs
without authorization. It is not violated by VidAngel or its customers who are
authorized to decrypt each movie for viewing and filtering.
Even if there were merit to either of the Studios’ Copyright Act claims, this
case concerns paradigmatic fair use. Filtering a movie is profoundly
transformative. That is why (1) the Studios fought it, (2) millions of families want
it, and (3) Congress passed a law authorizing it. Nor does filtering hurt the Studios;
2
175603.9

instead, it benefits them because it expands their market to people who otherwise
would not watch their movies.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Copyright Act of 1976, 17
U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the “Copyright Act”). The Studios allege that VidAngel
violated 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 1201.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because this
appeal is taken from an order of the district court granting an injunction against
VidAngel. The injunction was entered on December 12, 2016. ER1. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), VidAngel timely filed its Notice
of Appeal on December 14, 2016. ER88.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.

Whether the Studios’ claims that VidAngel’s disc-based filtering

business infringes upon their reproduction and public performance rights under 17
U.S.C. § 106 and violates the access-control provision of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) are
likely to succeed on the merits.
2.

Whether the Studios are likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of

VidAngel’s conduct.
3.

Whether the balance of equities justifies a preliminary injunction

shutting down VidAngel’s disc-based filtering business.
3
175603.9

4.

Whether a preliminary injunction that leaves the American public with

no viable filtering option is in the public interest.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Studios have a long history of using litigation, lobbying, and dominant
market position to influence the home movie market. For example, they have sued
every technology company that has ever attempted to enable filtering. Their
conduct forced Congress to amend the Copyright Act in 2005 to protect consumers
and filtering companies like VidAngel.
A.

Studio Control Over The Home Movie Market
Motion pictures were designed for theaters. Technological innovations,

however, have enabled a rapidly evolving market for home movie viewing.
Videocassette Recorder (“VCR”). The Studios initially enlisted the courts
and the legislature to protect them from the VCR, which enabled “time-shifting,”
i.e., the practice of recording for later playback. Motion Picture Association of
America (“MPAA”) head Jack Valenti famously testified before Congress that “the
VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston
strangler is to the woman home alone.”1

1

Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearing on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794,
H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcomm. on Courts,
Civil Liberties, and the Admin. of Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th
Cong. 8 (1982) (statement of Jack Valenti).
4
175603.9

The Studios’ scare campaign nearly succeeded. In 1984, the Supreme Court
protected the VCR by a single vote. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios,
Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The Court immunized the VCR from the Studios’
copyright claims on the grounds that “private, noncommercial time-shifting in the
home” is non-infringing. Id. at 442.2
Ironically, the Studios’ defeat enriched them. By 1995, more than half their
domestic revenue came from home video, compared to less than a quarter from
movie theaters.3 Despite dire warnings, the VCR was not “the death knell of the
movie business. Instead it became arguably its savior * * * .”4
In the 1980s, the Studios developed a business strategy called “release
windows” to capture the greatest possible share of the new home movie market.
They first released movies to be shown in theaters. Six months later, they sold
VHS tapes for an exorbitant price (typically $70 to $108 at the time) so that only

2

The Studios also lobbied for anti-VCR legislation See Derek Khanna, A Look
Back at How the Content Industry Almost Killed Blockbuster and Netflix (and the
VCR), TechCrunch (Dec. 27, 2013), https://technology.ihs.com/40273
6/studios-settle-dispute-with-redbox.
3

Peter M. Nichols, Home Video, N.Y. Times (July
www.nytimes.com/1996/07/12/movies/home-video-078344.html.
4

12,

1996),

Dan Ackman, Movie Studios Get Hip with the Future, Forbes (Aug. 17, 2001),
www.forbes.com/2001/08/17/0817topnews.html.
5
175603.9

rental businesses would buy them. 5 Months later (when rental demand subsided),
they lowered the price of VHS tapes to encourage purchases by collectors.6
Digital Video Disc (“DVD”). Then came the DVD. 7 Transition from VHS
was swift: by 2006, Americans spent $22.8 billion on DVD sales and rentals,
representing 99% of all home entertainment spending.8 Unlike VHS tapes, the
DVD consumer sales market was significant. The Studios altered their “release
windows” strategy to sell DVDs quickly and cheaply. 9
In the late 2000s, the startup Redbox threatened this model. Redbox buys
new release DVDs and rents them for $1 per day through automated kiosks.10
5

See David Waterman & Sung-Choon Lee, Time Consistency and the
Distribution of Theatrical Films: An Empirical Study of the Video Window 8, 32
(Allied Soc. Sci. Ass’ns Annual Mtg., Working Paper, Jan. 2003); Jeffrey C. Ulin,
The Business of Media Distribution: Monetizing Film, TV and Video Content in an
Online World 205 (2d ed. 2015).
6

See Ulin, The Business of Media Distribution, supra n.5, at 209. Selling
movies at lower prices for retail rather than rental is called “sell-through pricing.”
Id. at 3.
7

See Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, A History of Home Video and Video Game
Retailing: 2000-Present, www.entmerch.org/press-room/industry-history.html.
8

See DEG Year-End 2006 Home Entertainment Sales Update, The Digital
Entm’t Grp. (Jan. 8, 2007), www.degonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02
/f_4Q06.pdf.
9

See Mike Snider, DVDs Conquer the Movie World, USA Today (updated Oct.
18, 2002), www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/products/2002-10-17dvd-cover_x.htm
10

Brooks Barnes, Movie Studios See a Threat in Growth of Redbox, N.Y. Times
(Sept.
6,
2009),
www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/business/media/07red
box.html.
6
175603.9

Redbox grew quickly. 11 It undermined the Studios’ profits because consumers had
less incentive to purchase DVDs when they could rent new releases
inexpensively. 12 In 2009, multiple Studios refused to sell any DVDs to Redbox
until 28 days after their initial release. 13 Only after Redbox sued them for copyright
misuse and antitrust violations 14 did the Studios agree to work with Redbox. 15
Video on Demand (“VOD” or “Streaming”). About then, movie streaming
became viable. 16 Streaming transformed the entertainment landscape again.
Americans now spend more on streaming video than on physical discs, and DVD

11

Redbox passed 100 million total rentals in February 2008, and it passed 1
billion rentals in September 2010. See Redbox Surpasses 100 Million DVD
Rentals, Kiosk Marketplace (Jan. 31, 2008), www.kioskmarketplace.com/news/
redbox-surpasses-100-million-dvd-rentals-2/; Press Release, Three Cheers!
America Rents 3 Billionth Redbox Disc, Redbox (July 30, 2013),
www.redbox.com/release_20130730.
12

See Chuck Tryon, Redbox vs. Red Envelope, Or What Happens When The
Infinite Aisle Swings Through The Grocery Store, 20 Canadian J. of Film Stud. 38,
41 (2011).
13

See supra n.10.

14

See, e.g., Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP, No.
08-cv-766, 2009 WL 2588748 (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2009).
15

Richard Cooper, Studios Settle Dispute with Redbox, IHS Markit (May 12,
2010), https://technology.ihs.com/402736/studios-settle-dispute-with-redbox.
16

Amazon launched a streaming service in 2006; Netflix introduced its
streaming service in 2007, and Hulu began streaming in 2008. See generally
Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, A History of Home Video and Video Game Retailing: 2000Present, www.entmerch.org/press-room/industry-history.html.
7
175603.9

drives are becoming obsolete. 17 Responding to the growth of streaming, the
Studios again modified their “release windows” strategy. 18
B.

Studio Efforts To Thwart Home Movie Filtering
Technological innovations that allow Americans to filter mature content

from lawfully purchased or rented movies at home have likewise enriched the
Studios by increasing the market for their works. Yet the Studios have sought to
destroy every filtering company.
Various companies emerged in the late 1990s to meet a market demand for
“E-rated” home movies.19 Some bought DVDs, physically removed mature
content, and resold them. 20 One company (ClearPlay, Inc.) made a specialized

17

See, e.g., ER317-18.

18

See Nelson Granados, Changes To Hollywood Release Windows Are Coming
Fast And Furious, Forbes (Apr. 8, 2015), www.forbes.com/sites/nelson
granados/2015/04/08/changes-to-hollywood-release-windows-are-coming-fastand-furious/#2fd562d05e5f; Matt Schruers, The Public Costs of Private
Distribution Strategies: Content Release Windows As Negative Externalities,
Project Disco (June 2, 2015), www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/06
0215-the-public-costs-of-private-distribution-strategies-content-release-wind
ows-as-negative-externalities/#.WGrbrFUrKUk.
19

See Press Release, DGA Responds and Counterclaims Against Robert
Huntsman and Clean Flicks; Adds Motion Picture Studios to Suit, Directors Guild
of America (Sept. 20, 2002), www.dga.org/News/PressReleases/2002/
0920-DGA-Responds-and-Counterclaims-Against-Robert-Huntsman-andCleanFlicks.aspx; Michael Cornick, Modern Film Censorship: Television, Airlines,
and Home Entertainment 5 (2008).
20

See John McLaughlin, Episode of the McLaughlin Group (Sept. 27, 2002),
transcript available at www.mclaughlin.com/transcript.htm?id=317.
8
175603.9

DVD player that enabled customers to skip objectionable content.21 By the early
2000s, each was embroiled in litigation with Hollywood. For example, the
Directors Guild of America (“DGA”) and the Studios alleged that ClearPlay
violated the Copyright Act by permitting home filtering.22
Hollywood made clear that it was vehemently opposed to filtering, claiming
that the practice illegally infringed upon their rights. In particular, the Studios and
DGA argued that filtering performed without the approval of the director
undermined the film’s artistic integrity by “interfer[ing] with the story a director is
trying to tell.”23
Despite Hollywood’s pervasive campaign against filtering, the litigation with
ClearPlay and its peers led to public outcry. Congress held hearings and enacted
the Family Movie Act of 2005 (“FMA”). As explained below, the FMA expressly
protects filtering devices like the ClearPlay box as well as filtered streaming.
In the 12 years since Congress passed the FMA, the ClearPlay box has
marginally survived, with few customers and substantial technical challenges. That

21

See H.R. Rep. No. 109-33, pt. 1, at 70 (2005).

22

Huntsman v. Soderbergh, No. 02-cv-01662, 2005 WL 1993421 (D. Colo.
Aug. 17, 2005).
23

Derivative Rights, Moral Rights, and Movie Filtering Technology: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Prop. of the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 122 (2004) (statement of Taylor Hackford,
on behalf of the DGA).
9
175603.9

is unsurprising because most Americans now prefer to stream movies instead of
playing DVDs. See, e.g., ER317-18. Until recently, there was no meaningful way
to watch filtered streamed content
ER711-12. Indeed, the Studios’ current agreement with the
DGA prohibits the Studios from doing so.24
Enter VidAngel.
C.

The Founding And Growth Of VidAngel
VidAngel founder and CEO Neal Harmon was raised in a religious home in

which movies featuring nudity, excessive violence, or profanity were not shown.
ER521-22. Unable to watch most popular entertainment, Harmon and his siblings
grew up feeling excluded from American culture and from their peers. Id. When
they became parents, they created VidAngel to give their children the social
experience they missed without sacrificing their convictions. ER523-25.
Before launching VidAngel’s current service, Harmon tried two other
models, but the Studios withheld permission each time. One worked with Google’s
Chromecast device, ER524-25, but at the request of the Studios, Google (which

24

See ER313. Section 7-509 of the DGA Agreement is entitled “Editing
Theatrical Motion Pictures,” and prohibits most alterations to a motion picture
without the approval of the director. ER313. The agreement also reflects the actual
practice of the Studios. For example, Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc. advised
VidAngel that it could not license VidAngel to stream filtered movies unless
VidAngel obtained permission from the DGA. ER313.
10
175603.9

owns YouTube) removed the technology that allowed filtering on Chromecast.
ER526. YouTube also notified VidAngel that it was violating YouTube’s terms of
service. ER527. VidAngel then briefly gave filtering away for free, which
customers could watch via the YouTube Player in a computer’s Chrome browser.
ER527. This approach worked only for standard, not HD, content. ER527. Google
then reached out to VidAngel to explore a filtering feature that would work for all
content on Google Play. ER527. But that partnership too required Studio sign-off,
and they again refused. ER527.
Faced with this intransigence, VidAngel developed its current business. For
each title it offers, VidAngel buys multiple, legally authorized copies of the movie
on DVD or Blu-ray disc. ER292, 533-34. It copies and processes the movie file(s)
from one disc so they can be tagged for inappropriate content and uploads them to
cloud storage. E487-88. This entails breaking the movie into tiny segments and
tagging each segment for over 80 categories of content, including nudity, profanity,
drug use, sex, and violence. ER318, 486-87. The tagged segments are encrypted
and stored in the cloud. ER487.
VidAngel purchases many authorized DVDs or Blu-ray discs of each title.
See, e.g., ER292 (“VidAngel spends one third of all capital raised to lawfully
purchase thousands of DVD and Blu-ray discs * * * .”); ER674-87 (VidAngel

11
175603.9

already spent $1.2 million buying DVDs as of September 2016). It enters each disc
into an inventory database and assigns each a unique barcode. ER487.
VidAngel’s customers can watch filtered movies, including HD content, on
their favorite mobile devices and set-top boxes using apps that VidAngel
developed for Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Android TV, Kindle Fire, and Google
Play. ER532-34. To watch a filtered movie, a VidAngel customer purchases a
specific physical disc from VidAngel’s inventory. ER489. If VidAngel does not
have a disc in stock, it informs the customer that that title is “out of stock” and the
movie is unavailable. ER541 (VidAngel sent nearly 60,000 unique customers over
250,000 “out of stock” notices in August 2016).
The customer must select at least one filter, and customers who filter out the
credits (which may contain offensive blooper reels) must choose at least one
additional filter. ER532-34. Approximately 96% of VidAngel customers request
multiple filters; typically, language and sex. ER536. VidAngel streams only those
segments that meet the customer’s preferences. See ER486-87, 489. No copy of the
individualized, filtered movie exists in fixed form. ER489 (VidAngel discards the
segments).
VidAngel encourages its customers to sell their discs back. Those who do so
receive store credit equal to the purchase price of their disc less $1 per day for each

12
175603.9

day of ownership. ER536. Customers who sell their discs back pay VidAngel
around what they would pay Redbox for the same title. ER529, 536; supra n.10.
In July and August 2015, VidAngel wrote to the Studios and described its
business model in detail. ER529-30, 547-50. Its letters disclosed that VidAngel had
grown from 43 to 4,848 users in under six months, asked to work with the Studios,
and invited them to access VidAngel and inquire about its technology and business.
ER547-50. VidAngel specifically asked: “If you disagree with VidAngel’s belief
that its technology fully complies with the Copyright Act or otherwise does not
adequately protect the rights of copyright owners, please let us know.” ER550. No
Studio responded substantively.
Instead, the Studios opened a VidAngel account and prepared for litigation.25
During the many months the Studios waited silently before filing suit, VidAngel
officially opened to the public, spent millions of dollars to acquire discs, raised
millions in additional funding, hired employees, and undertook monumental efforts
to improve its service and develop apps for every major mobile application store
and set-top box. ER532-34.

25

Plaintiff Disney Enterprises opened a VidAngel account on August 6, 2015.
ER529-30, 551-53.
ER724-25.
13
175603.9

D.

This Litigation
Eleven months after learning of VidAngel’s model, the Studios filed this

two-count lawsuit on June 19, 2016. Both counts allege violations of the Copyright
Act. ER629-31. On July 12, 2016, VidAngel counterclaimed for, inter alia,
antitrust and tort violations. ER331-34.
Two months after filing suit, on August 22, 2016, the Studios filed a
preliminary injunction motion and noticed a hearing for October 24, 2016. ER568.
By the parties’ agreement, and later on the court’s own motion, the hearing date
was moved, ultimately to November 14, 2016. ER218, 288, 652.
On December 12, 2016 the court entered an order granting a preliminary
injunction. ER1. After the Studios posted bond, ER75, VidAngel endeavored to
find a technological solution that would allow it to remove only the Studios’ titles
from its servers, but was unable to do so. ER28. On December 29, 2016, VidAngel
completely shut down its movie-streaming service. ER28. 26 VidAngel timely
appealed. Both the district court and this Court denied VidAngel’s requests for a
stay pending appeal. ER24, 29.

26

Despite VidAngel’s complete shutdown of its movie-streaming servers on
December 29, 2016, the district court (on January 6, 2017) found VidAngel—for
not complying faster—in contempt and ordered VidAngel to pay the Studios
$10,231.20 in attorneys’ fees. ER23.
14
175603.9

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Brookfield
Commc’ns v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999). Reversal
is appropriate if the district court based its decision on clearly erroneous findings
of fact or erroneous legal principles. Id. at 1046.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
VidAngel’s filtering business is specifically protected by the FMA and not
otherwise illegal or unfair.
First, the district court erred in finding that the Studios are likely to win their
reproduction and public performance claims. The FMA authorizes filtering that
satisfies certain conditions, and VidAngel does so. All filtering begins with and
thus comes “from an authorized copy,” and no “fixed copy” of the filtered movie is
ever created. Nor does VidAngel engage in a “public performance”: rather, it
streams individualized content to its particular lawful owner at her direction.
Second, the district court incorrectly found that the Studios were likely to
succeed on their access control circumvention claim. There is no dispute that
VidAngel and its customers are authorized to access movies to view them. What
the Studios really object to is a decryption method that allows VidAngel to copy,
filter, and stream—i.e., unauthorized use—but the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (“DMCA”) expressly does not penalize unauthorized use. Compare 17 U.S.C.
15
175603.9

§ 1201(a) (prohibiting unauthorized access) with 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) (permitting
unauthorized use). The Studios’ broad reading of section 1201(a) would effectively
give them unilateral authority to prevent non-infringing uses of their content. That
is not what Congress intended in enacting the Copyright Act or the DMCA, and it
would impermissibly render the FMA a dead letter.
VidAngel will also prevail on an alternative fair use defense to both the
copyright and circumvention claims. Buying a disc at the price set by the Studios,
filtering it at the direction of its owner, and streaming that content is classic spaceshifting fair use. This practice also benefits the Studios by broadening their
audience, as has every other previous transformative home entertainment
technology.
Nor do the equities favor the Studios. They presented no evidence of any
harm below, let alone irreparable harm. VidAngel, in contrast, was forced to shut
down to comply with the district court’s order. As a result—despite Congress’s
wishes—millions of American families have no viable filtering option.
The injunction should be dissolved.

16
175603.9

ARGUMENT
I.

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding The Studios
Demonstrated Likelihood Of Success On Their First Cause Of Action:
Copyright Infringement Under 17 U.S.C. § 106.
The Studios maintain that VidAngel (i) violates their reproduction rights

under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) by making intermediate copies of each movie as part of
its filtering process and (ii) violates their public performance rights under
17 U.S.C. § 106(4) by streaming a filtered movie to its customers. ER594-99.
The district court agreed. ER9-11. That was error. The FMA expressly
immunizes VidAngel from any liability under section 106. And VidAngel is likely
to prevail on its alternative fair use defense.
A.

The FMA Authorizes Filtering That Satisfies Certain Conditions.

The Studios obscure the point and plain command of the FMA by deriding
VidAngel’s business model as illicit. In the first paragraph of their Complaint (and
every subsequent brief), they insist VidAngel is a pirate that does not pay for what
it does. See, e.g., ER614 (“VidAngel charges users for watching that content but
has no authorization and pays nothing for the rights it exploits.”) (emphasis
added). That is demonstrably false.
VidAngel spends millions of dollars buying the Studios’ discs. ER674-75. It
then sells those physical discs to its customers. ER509-10. Only customers who
own a specific, physical disc of a given movie can get a stream from VidAngel.

17
175603.9

ER510. Nothing about that is unfair. The Studios are paid handsomely both in total
dollars and as a percentage of the total revenues collected by VidAngel. 27 To be
clear: the Studios have been paid.
The Studios know this. So they attack VidAngel’s model as a “sham,”
arguing that VidAngel’s customers aren’t owners because most sell the discs back
to VidAngel after seeing the movie. That is neither accurate nor material.
First, the Studios’ characterization of VidAngel as a rental business is simply
wrong. If you purchase something with the intent to resell it, that does not mean
you are not its owner. And 20% of VidAngel’s discs are never sold back. ER99.
Second, the Studios’ characterization is irrelevant. VidAngel could legally
rent each physical disc as many times as it wants. (That’s what Redbox does.) And
lawful possessors of a disc—whether owners or renters—can watch the movie how
often they want, and how they want. No one disputes that a renter can fast-forward
through objectionable parts of a movie. There is therefore no reason she cannot ask
VidAngel to do it for her.

27

See, e.g., ER683

ER683 (noting that “Google Play and VUDU
VOD Distribution Agreements with Sony calls for Sony to receive 70% of the
revenue day one, and receive 65% for the four weeks thereafter for all new release
rentals.”).
18
175603.9

VidAngel’s model is perfectly legitimate and a natural descendant of the
approach used by companies like Blockbuster and Redbox. Moreover, the FMA
was expressly written to protect legitimate filtering businesses like VidAngel. And
the Studios get paid millions.
The FMA is codified, in pertinent part, at 17 U.S.C. § 110(11) and is part of
the Copyright Act. Conduct that satisfies its conditions is afforded a complete
defense to all claims under 17 U.S.C. § 106. The relevant text provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not
infringements of copyright: * * * the making imperceptible, by or at
the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions
of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in
or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an
authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a
computer program or other technology that enables such making
imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the
direction of a member of a private household, for such making
imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion
picture is created by such computer program or other technology.
17 U.S.C. § 110(11) (emphasis added).
The raison d’être of the FMA is to ensure that families who lawfully
purchase or rent movies can filter them for viewing in their homes without
violating the Copyright Act. 28 The FMA specifically immunizes technology

28

The FMA was designed to “immunize[] from copyright and trademark
liability any for-profit companies that develop movie-editing software” to sanitize
“undesired content,” 150 Cong. Rec. H7659 (daily ed. Sept. 28, 2004) (statement
of Rep. Jackson-Lee), and to “ensure” that technology that helps parents
19
175603.9

(whether known or later developed) that enables such filtering. 29 All of this is clear
from the text of the Act itself:
• As a starting point, the Act defines filtering: “the making imperceptible * * *
of limited portions * * * of a motion picture.”
• Second, to be non-infringing, filtering must be individualized and private,
viz., the filtering must be done “at the direction of a member of a private
household,” and “transmitted for private home viewing.”
• Third, the FMA couples the right to home filtering with the right to build and
use technology to effectuate it. Specifically, the FMA expressly authorizes
the use of “a computer program or other technology that enables” home
filtering (emphasis added), provided that technology does not create “[a]
fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture.”
• Fourth, one cannot filter a bootlegged copy of a movie and claim immunity
from infringement; the filtering must come “from an authorized copy” of the
movie.
Filtering that satisfies the above conditions is, by command of Congress, noninfringing. As a result, neither the Studios’ reproduction nor public performance
infringement claims can prevail.
B.

VidAngel’s Filtering Satisfies The FMA’s Conditions.

The facts of VidAngel’s service are not in dispute. VidAngel lawfully buys a
disc of a given title, decrypts the disc and copies the movie, breaks the movie into
many segments, and then “tags” each segment for over 80 categories of
“determine what their children see on the screen” would “not face continued legal
challenges.” Id. (statement of Rep. Smith).
29

The Copyright Act defines performance to include the playing “either directly
or by means of any device or process * * * .” 17 U.S.C. § 101. It defines a
“device” or “process” as “one now known or later developed.” Id.
20
175603.9

objectionable content. VidAngel “reassembles” a title only when a customer
chooses which objectionable content to filter, after which VidAngel transmits the
non-filtered segments to the consumer’s home for private viewing. The district
court erred in concluding that the foregoing conduct infringes the Studios’
reproduction and public performance rights.
1.

The reproduction claim is unlikely to succeed.

Regarding reproduction, the district court reasoned that VidAngel—in
copying the movie from a disc as the first step in its filtering process—creates a
“copy” of the movie in violation of section 106(1). ER9-10. It then mistakenly held
that the FMA does not excuse such conduct because “[t]he digital content that
VidAngel streams to its customers is not from an authorized copy.” ER12.
The district court did not dispute that VidAngel begins its filtering process
with an authorized copy of the title, i.e., a disc acquired on the open market.
Instead, it took issue with a step in VidAngel’s filtering process, namely, copying
the movie from the disc. It viewed that step as creating an unauthorized copy
outside the FMA’s safe harbor and reasoned that any subsequent filtered stream
sent by VidAngel could not be “from an authorized copy,” as the statute requires.
That conclusion was erroneous for three reasons.
First, a common sense reading of the statute supports VidAngel. Buying an
authorized disc and processing it into tiny segments tagged for mature content that

21
175603.9

may be reassembled only by filtering customers is most naturally described as
providing filtering “from an authorized copy.” Holiday cards are best described as
coming from loved ones, even though the mailman serves as an intermediary. Only
a hypertechnical interpretation would insist the card came from the mailman.
Second, Congress carefully crafted the FMA’s protections to avoid turning
on the technical details of any given filtering technology. The statute authorizes not
merely “the creation or provision of a computer program,” but also, broadly, “or
other technology that enables” filtering, 17 U.S.C. § 110(11) (emphasis added),
thereby making clear Congress’s intent to dispense with battles over intermediate
steps. Instead, Congress focused on the initial step of filtering, i.e., it must begin
with an authorized copy, and the final step of filtering, i.e., it cannot result in a
fixed copy of a consumer’s altered version of the movie. If one begins with an
authorized copy of a title, and displays the filtered movie only to consumer-owners
of that title, in the most natural construction of the phrase, VidAngel’s technology
enables filtering from (and with respect to) an authorized copy.
Third, VidAngel offers the only interpretation consistent with the purpose of
the FMA. The Studios long insisted that only they had the power to authorize
filtering of their movies. Congress specifically disagreed, deciding that families
should have the power to filter in their own homes. In granting filtering power to

22
175603.9

consumers, Congress could not have intended to preclude technological solutions
that entail transient, intermediate copies.
2.

The public performance claim is unlikely to succeed.

At the Studios’ urging, the district court also concluded that VidAngel
engages in a “public performance” of protected works. ER10-11. Its conclusion
that VidAngel publicly performs was mistaken. As an initial matter, VidAngel does
not engage in any “performance.” 30 But even if it did, the FMA is a complete
defense. As explained above, VidAngel’s service results in precisely what the FMA
specifically sanctions, i.e., a “performance * * * transmitted * * * for private home
viewing.”
Even under a traditional analysis, VidAngel does not stream to the public. It
streams only to customers who have purchased a disc and therefore have paid for
the right to view its content an unlimited number of times in the privacy of their
homes. For purposes of section 106(4), that distinction is critical.

30

It is VidAngel’s customers (not VidAngel) who transmit and therefore
perform. VidAngel streams only at the customer’s direction, and only what the
customer elects not to filter out. Cf. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital
Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1020 (9th Cir. 2013); Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v.
CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 131-33 (2d Cir. 2008); Costar Grp., Inc. v.
LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 551 (4th Cir. 2004); Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v.
Aveco, Inc., 800 F.2d 59, 62 (3d Cir. 1986). American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo
did not abolish the volition requirement. 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) (“Aereo”). Unlike
Aereo, VidAngel’s customers purchase a disc and request streaming of the content
in a manner tailored to their individual preferences.
23
175603.9

Persons who have legally obtained the right to possess and view the relevant
content are not members of “the public” under section 106(4). The Supreme Court
was unequivocal about this: “We have said that [the term public] does not extend to
those who act as owners or possessors of the relevant product.” Aereo, 134 S. Ct. at
2510-11.31
That makes sense. One who has the right to view a disc can arrange to do so
in her own home. Nothing about transmitting the disc’s content to that person is
“public” in law or logic. Indeed, two of the Studios (Disney and Fox) granted this
precise point in Aereo. See Brief for Petitioners at *46, Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498
(2014) (No. 13-461), 2014 WL 768315 (“There is an obvious difference between a
service that merely stores and provides an individual user access to copies of
copyrighted content that the user already has legally obtained, and a service that
offers the copyrighted content itself to the public at large.”).
The district court nonetheless concluded that VidAngel’s customers own
only the disc, not the right to have that content streamed, and therefore are

31

See also Fox Broad. Co. v. Dish Network LLC, 160 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 1162
(C.D. Cal. 2015) (evaluating service in which “subscriber transmits programming
rightfully in her possession to another device,” and concluding that “[t]his is
simply not a ‘public’ performance within the meaning of the Transmit Clause”
(emphasis in original)); United States v. ASCAP, 627 F.3d 64, 73 (2d Cir. 2010)
(noting that “when Congress speaks of transmitting a performance to the public, it
refers to the performance created by the act of transmission * * * ” (citation
omitted)).
24
175603.9

members of the public with respect to receiving a stream. ER10-11 (adopting the
Studios’ argument). That both misses the point of what the Supreme Court and the
Studios said in Aereo regarding who the public is (and isn’t) and how VidAngel’s
service works. VidAngel streams a filtered movie that (1) is available only to
customers who own a disc—and thus have a right to play at their leisure the movie
in question, and (2) is available only to disc owners pursuant to their personalized
filtering choices (i.e., each stream is unique). Cf. Cartoon Network, 536 F.3d at 139
(holding that “transmission * * * made to a single subscriber using a single unique
copy produced by that subscriber” is not a public performance).
Because VidAngel’s service is available only to those who lawfully purchase
discs, the filtering it offers is not only private, but profoundly limited. Millions of
families are interested in filtering. But because discs are costly for VidAngel to buy
and not unlimited in number, VidAngel can offer filtering only to a small subset of
its potential customer base. VidAngel’s model not only ensures that the Studios are
compensated for the discs they elected to sell, it makes it impossible for VidAngel
to offer streaming to the public at large.
And that is the irony of this case. VidAngel would prefer to receive a license
from the Studios to stream filtered content to the public. ER540-41. 32 But the
Studios oppose filtering and have refused to deal. VidAngel thus had no choice but
32

Indeed, as discs become obsolete, so will VidAngel’s business. ER444-45.
25

175603.9

to resort to its disc-based model, which limits it to streaming filtered content based
upon the availability of a disc to purchase and resell. A disc for which the Studios
got paid.
One final point. That VidAngel does not stream from the physical disc it
sells to the customer is irrelevant for public performance purposes. As Disney and
Fox assured the Supreme Court: “the transmit clause says not a word about
whether transmissions originate from a single copy of a performance * * * .” Brief
for Petitioners at *36, Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) (No. 13-461), 2014 WL
768315. What matters is not the physical medium from which the content
originates, but the capacity in which the recipient receives it. Unlike the rest of the
non-owner “public,” an owner may watch a title an unlimited number of times,
whether by putting a disc in a home device or by transmission to her home. 33 The
opposite result, which the district court reached, is both hypertechnical and
inconsistent with Aereo’s guidance.
C.

VidAngel’s Service Is Also A Protected Fair Use.

The district court’s rejection of VidAngel’s fair use defense was also error.
See ER13-16. The fair use doctrine permits otherwise infringing uses that society
33

See Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners at
*32, Aereo, 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2013) (No.13-461), 2014 WL 828079
(“Ordinarily * * * a consumer’s streaming of her own lawfully acquired copy to
herself would effect a private performance outside the scope of the Transmit
Clause.”).
26
175603.9

prefers to allow. As the Supreme Court memorably put it, fair use is an “equitable
rule of reason * * * which permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright
statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is
designed to foster.” Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236 (1990).
What VidAngel does is fair under the FMA and under generally recognized
concepts in fair use jurisprudence. VidAngel creates an intermediate copy for
precisely one reason: so that it can send filtered streams to its customers’ homes.
Making intermediate copies to further the ultimate public good and purpose of the
Copyright Act has long been recognized as classic fair use. See, e.g., Sega Enters.
Ltd. v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (Jan. 6, 1993);
Sony Comput. Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 602-08 (9th Cir.
2000). And here the ultimate non-infringing use—viewing a filtered movie at
home—is one Congress specifically sanctioned.
Streaming individually filtered versions of movies to customers after they
have purchased a disc copy of the movie does not differ meaningfully from what
this Court has called a paradigmatic example of fair use: space-shifting. Recording
Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th
Cir. 1999). Space-shifting refers to the idea that a consumer who buys content has
the equitable right to watch it across platforms. Because a customer who buys a
disc of a movie clearly has the right to watch it, fair use permits her to upload that
27
175603.9

movie to cloud storage and watch it via a stream. She is not limited to watching the
movie solely from the disc. Such space-shifting, as the content providers have
themselves told the Supreme Court, is perfectly legal. Transcript of Oral Argument
at 12, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
(No. 04-480) (“The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time
now * * * that it’s perfectly lawful to take a CD that you’ve purchased, upload it
onto your computer, put it on your iPod.”).
VidAngel facilitates permissible space-shifting with a congressionally
approved twist. Using the Internet, a customer instructs VidAngel to create and
transmit a filtered stream of a movie that the customer, by virtue of her disc
ownership, is already entitled to view. That is space-shifting. The only difference is
that the streamed content is filtered. But that does not make the use unfair. To the
contrary, transmitting a filtered stream to a household that owned the movie is
exactly what Congress intended.
The individual fair use factors support the same conclusion. True, VidAngel
is a commercial enterprise; it filters creative, fictional works, and it uses a
substantial portion of those works. These factors may perhaps weigh slightly
against a finding of fair use. 34 But that was also true for the VCR, and for many
34

But see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 820-21 (9th Cir. 2002) (in
analogous setting, these factors neither “weigh[] for nor against either
party * * * .”)
28
175603.9

other protected fair uses as well.35 And here they are easily outweighed by two
other factors.
First, what VidAngel does is profoundly transformative, which weighs
heavily in favor of fair use. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 570
(1994) (explaining that “the more transformative the new work, the less will be the
significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding
of fair use.”). The district court deemed VidAngel’s filtering not transformative
because it “does not add anything to Plaintiff’s works * * * [i]t simply omits
portions that viewers find objectionable.” ER14. That conclusion is both inaccurate
and wrongly dismissive of the interest the FMA was enacted to vindicate.
To state the obvious: omissions can transform a work. Romeo and Juliet
absent the final act is not a tragedy, and the Bible reads quite differently with no
resurrection of Jesus. Nor is the transformative power of omission limited to plot.
Removal of mature content has such a powerful transformative effect that only
then will certain audiences watch those movies. Religious convictions, and
parental views about what is appropriate for children, are real and powerful and in
fact matter more to VidAngel’s customers than anything else about a particular

35

See, e.g., Kelly, 336 F.3d at 815-21 (commercial use of thumbnails that
depicted entire content of copyrighted pictures was protected). Indeed, to equate
commercial use with unfair use would effectively destroy the doctrine.

29
175603.9

title. Congress patently agreed, determining that “simply omit[ting] portions [of
copyrighted works] that viewers find objectionable” was significant enough to
warrant express Congressional protection. The Studios resisted mightily precisely
because they claimed the exclusive right to make editorial choices. H.R. Rep. No.
109-33, pt. 1, at 69 (2005). Those choices matter because omissions can clearly
transform a work. 36
Nor does VidAngel’s transformative filtering undermine the value of or
market for the Studios’ works. VidAngel is no pirate. Like Redbox and Blockbuster
before it, VidAngel spends millions of dollars to buy discs the Studios have chosen
to sell, directly profiting the Studios. Moreover, the evidence established that many
American families would not watch the Studios’ titles absent a convenient filtering
service—which means that VidAngel benefits the Studios’ bottom line by
increasing their potential audience. Cf. Sony, 464 U.S. at 454 (“It is not implausible
that benefits could also accrue to plaintiffs, broadcasters, and advertisers, as the
Betamax makes it possible for more persons to view their broadcasts.”). Indeed, a
majority (51%) of VidAngel’s customers would not view movies without filtering.
ER536-37.

36

See, e.g., supra n.23 (statement of Taylor Hackford, on behalf of the DGA)
(“Removing scenes and dialogue from films interferes with the story a director is
trying to tell, and in so doing, can take away from the narrative structure and
overall vision * * * .”).
30
175603.9

There is no doubt that VidAngel’s conduct would be fair use if all its
customers refused to watch the Studios’ movies without filtering. The fair use
doctrine indisputably protects “a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the
potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work” since such use “need
not be prohibited in order to protect the author’s incentive to create.” Sony, 464
U.S. at 449. As the district court found, that reality is true for the majority of
VidAngel’s customers. ER15.
That leaves a minority of customers who might indeed be forced to watch
content (perhaps without their children) they do not desire because VidAngel’s
filtering is unavailable. ER36-37. But even for this minority, VidAngel gives the
Studios the cut they are due: the Studios make the same amount from VidAngel
(i.e., the purchase price of the disc) as they do from Redbox or other businesses
that buy and rent these discs to customers. In short, VidAngel expands the market
and pays the Studios their share. That Studios might make more money by selling
platform-specific copies explains (partially) why we are here. But it does not
entitle the Studios to relief. The Studios already got paid, and their market is only
enhanced.

31
175603.9

II.

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding The Studios
Demonstrated Likelihood Of Success On Their Second Claim: Access
Control Circumvention Under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
Because their first claim (copyright infringement) is weak, the Studios begin

every submission with their second claim (DMCA circumvention). The Studios’
DMCA argument is both simple and facially appealing. It is also wrong.
The DMCA differentiates between measures that control access (section
1201(a)) and measures that control use (section 1201(b)). Circumventing usecontrol measures is not actionable under the DMCA. Use-control circumvention
permits a remedy only if the resulting use infringes copyright in violation of
17 U.S.C. § 106. 37 Declining to prohibit circumvention of use-control measures
makes good sense. The alternative would allow content creators to employ use
controls to bar non-infringing uses by lawful content owners.
Access-controls prevent viewing, not use. They are treated differently;
circumventing them without the owner’s authority is independently actionable.
Encryption is an access control because it prevents unauthorized viewing. Yet like
all disc owners, VidAngel and its customers unquestionably have authority to
decrypt and view each movie.

37

Trafficking in use-control circumvention technology is also actionable. See
17 U.S.C. § 1201(b).
32
175603.9

The Studios insist that they only conditionally authorize access: decryption
to view is allegedly granted, but decryption to copy, filter, and stream is allegedly
not. But conditional authorization to access content depending on what you do with
it is just use-control by another name. Permitting the Studios to enforce such a
control through section 1201(a) would frustrate the comprehensive scheme
Congress enacted for use-controls, which imposes liability only for (1) trafficking
or (2) subsequently committing copyright infringement. VidAngel does neither.
The Studios’ position distorts the text, history, and purpose of the DMCA. It
is also irreconcilable with the FMA, enacted seven years later. If this Court
nonetheless adopts the Studios’ position, it must then answer a question it
expressly left unresolved in MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.:
is fair use an affirmative defense to a prima facie violation of section 1201? 629
F.3d 928, 958 n.12 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Blizzard”). The answer is yes. And, as
explained above, VidAngel is likely to prevail on such a defense.
A.

The DMCA Prohibits The Unauthorized Circumvention Of Access
Protections, Not Copy Protections.

To understand why VidAngel does not violate 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), it
is important to understand the three circumvention prohibitions set forth in the
statute. As this Court noted in 2010: “The DMCA contains three provisions
directed at the circumvention of copyright owners’ technological measures.”
Blizzard, 629 F.3d at 943 (describing sections 1201(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and (b)(1)).
33
175603.9

The Studios accuse VidAngel of violating only the first of the three provisions: 17
U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A). See ER630-31.
Section 1201(a) of the DMCA concerns only the circumvention of access
protections. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(B) (defining the relevant phrase used
throughout section 1201(a): “a technological measure [that] ‘effectively controls
access to a work’”). The statute prohibits the direct circumvention of access
protections. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A). But it also makes clear that authorized
conduct does not constitute such circumvention:
[T]o “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a
scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure,
without the authority of the copyright owner * * * .
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The statute also imposes liability for
“trafficking” in access-circumvention devices. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2).
In contrast, section 1201(b) regulates the circumvention of copy (or use)
protections. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(2)(B) (defining the relevant phrase used
throughout section 1201(b): “a technological measure that effectively protects a
right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof”). As this
Court has expressly held, section 1201(b) does not prohibit direct circumvention.
Blizzard, 629 F.3d at 945 (Ҥ 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibits circumventing an effective
access control measure, whereas § 1201(b) * * * does not prohibit circumvention *
* * because such conduct was already outlawed as copyright infringement.”).
34
175603.9

Instead, section 1201(b) provides a broader definition of circumvention with no
exemption for authorization. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(2)(A). And it imposes
liability only on those who “traffic” in copy protection circumvention devices.
17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1).
B.

VidAngel Does Not Circumvent Access Control Protections
Because It Is Authorized By The Studios To Avoid Them.

VidAngel uses software to decrypt the protections of Content Scramble
System (“CSS”), Advanced Access Content System (“AACS”), and BD+. ER47475. But like all lawful purchasers, VidAngel is authorized by the Studios to decrypt
CSS, AACS, and BD+ to view the discs’ content (i.e., “gain access to the work”).
As such, VidAngel does not circumvent an access protection in violation of section
1201(a)(1)(A).
The Studios’ real objection is to the manner in which VidAngel avoids these
protections. In essence, the Studios claim the right to grant lawful disc purchasers
the authority to circumvent them only in a specific way that grants access but not
copying. Interpreting the text of section 1201(a) in such a manner, however,
ignores the structure, history, and purpose of the DMCA. Cf. LVRC Holdings LLC
v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting broad construction of
“without authorization” in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act); United States v. Nosal,
676 F.3d 854, 859 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (same).

35
175603.9

In Blizzard, this Court closely examined the differences between sections
1201(a) and (b) of the DMCA. 629 F.3d at 943-46. The Court determined that
section 1201(a) “creates a new anticircumvention right distinct from copyright
infringement.” Id. at 948. It specifically held that “a fair reading of the statute
(supported by legislative history) indicates that Congress created a distinct anticircumvention right under § 1201(a) without an infringement nexus requirement.”
Id. at 952.38
In rejecting a section 1201(a) infringement nexus requirement, the Blizzard
Court saw a distinct (and extremely narrow) Congressional purpose in section
1201(a) evidenced by legislative history. It noted that:
• “[T]he Senate Judiciary Committee report explains that 1201(a)(2) and
(b)(1) are ‘not interchangeable’: they were ‘designed to protect two
distinct rights and to target two distinct classes of devices’ * * * .” Id. at
947 (quoting S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 12 (1998)).
• “The House Judiciary Committee similarly states of 1201(a)(2), ‘The act
of circumventing a technological protection measure put in place by a
copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work is the electronic
equivalent of breaking into a locked room in order to obtain a copy of a
book.” Id. at 947 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1, at 17 (1998)).

38

In so doing, this Court created and acknowledged a circuit split with the
Federal Circuit. Blizzard, 629 F.3d at 948. In the Federal Circuit, the Studios’
failure to prevail on their copyright claim would necessarily doom their DMCA
claim. If this Court concludes that the Studios are unlikely to prevail on their
copyright claim but likely to prevail on their DMCA claim, VidAngel reserves the
right to seek en banc review of the infringement nexus question.
36
175603.9

Indeed, this Court relied on the House Commerce Committee’s explanation of how
such a locked room analogy applies in a digital world:
[An] increasing number of intellectual property works are being
distributed using a ‘client-server’ model, where the work is effectively
‘borrowed’ by the user (e.g., infrequent users of expensive software
purchase a certain number of uses, or viewers watch a movie on a
pay-per-view basis).
Id. at 947-48 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2, at 23 (1998)).
Unlike a customer who pays for a single viewing of the movie (and then
circumvents CSS, AACS, or BD+ to watch another time), VidAngel’s decryption is
not akin to breaking into a locked room to obtain a copy of a book. It is akin to
being given a key to a locked room and told to use the key only if you agree not to
photograph or take anything. Imagine that you use the key, find your property
inside, and photograph it. Whether or not your decision to photograph was
wrongful, it makes little sense to punish you for entering the room.
In passing the DMCA, Congress did not speak to every technological
measure that might eventually emerge. It created distinct rights in sections 1201(a)
and (b) without expressly addressing that a given technology might not fall clearly
into one category or the other. As later noted by the Librarian of Congress:
Congress did create a distinction between the conduct of
circumvention of access controls and the conduct of circumvention of
use controls by prohibiting the former while permitting the latter, but
neither the language of section 1201 nor the legislative history
addresses the possibility of access controls that also restrict use. It is
unclear how a court might address this issue. It would be helpful if
37
175603.9

Congress were to clarify its intent, since the implementation of merged
technological measures arguably would undermine Congress’s decision
to offer disparate treatment for access and use controls in section 1201.
65 Fed. Reg. 64568 (Oct. 27, 2000).
Congress has not taken up this suggestion to clarify the law. But the proper
answer is clear. If the lawful purchaser of a digital work is authorized by the
copyright holder to circumvent encryption to view (without restriction) a complete
work, any attempt to condition that authority on a method of decryption that
prevents copying is properly understood as a use (not access) control. If there is a
subsequent copyright violation (i.e., unlawful copying), then 17 U.S.C. § 106
provides the clear and satisfactory remedy. If there is no subsequent copyright
violation, the Studios will not (and should not) have any remedy under the
Copyright Act.
If the Studios’ contrary view were accepted, copyright owners could—and
likely will—prohibit lawful owners of copyrighted materials from engaging in a
wide range of lawful uses by employing measures that simultaneously protect
access and use. That is not and should not be the law.

38
175603.9

C.

VidAngel Offers The Only Reading Of Section 1201(a) That Can
Be Reconciled With The FMA, A Later-Enacted Statute.

Congress enacted the FMA because it wanted filtering, including filtering
over the Internet, to be legal despite the Studios’ objections. 39 Yet the Studios claim
that filtered streaming requires their permission. That cannot be right.
For any movie to be filtered, transmitted, and viewed over the Internet, the
following three things must happen: (1) one must have access to a decrypted copy
of the work; (2) one must stream the work or derivatives thereof over the Internet;
and (3) a filtering technology must be applied before displaying the work to the
end-user. As a matter of logic and physics, there is no successful transmission
scenario in which those three things do not happen.
Because the Studios encrypt all the content they produce, their reading of
section 1201(a) gives them an ironclad veto over step one of any transmission.
Like the district court, the Studios view the authorization of access to an encrypted
work as conditional; authorization to decrypt a movie to view it (which every disc
owner necessarily has and does) is allegedly not the same as authorization to
decrypt a movie to stream it. On their account, their power goes even further:
customers of services (like Google Play) that do obtain authorization to decrypt

39

Family Movie Act of 2004: Hearing on H.R. 4586 Before the Subcomm. on
Courts, the Internet, Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th
Cong. 68 (2004); H.R. Rep. No. 109-33, pt. 1, at 70 (2005).
39
175603.9

and stream movies can be subjected to terms of use. The Studios can thus always
contractually demand that streaming companies make filtering or modifying
streamed content a violation of the terms of service.
In the Studios’ view, the FMA only trimmed copyrights, not other rights, and
specifically not the access-control rights under section 1201(a) that they construe
expansively. According to the Studios, any filtering that infringes upon those
expansive rights is still verboten. Thus, filtering over the Internet can occur only
with their blessing.
That argument both ignores the history of the FMA and impugns Congress
as a spectacularly impotent body given to nullifying its own objectives. Cabell v.
Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1945) (Learned Hand explaining that “it is
one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence * * * to
remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish.”).
The point of the FMA was to permit filtering. As initially proposed, the
FMA addressed only filtering movies “performed in” private households, i.e.,
filtering movies played on DVD players in the home. Family Movie Act of 2004,
H.R. Rep. No. 4586, 108th Cong. § 2 (2004) (containing no transmission
language).

But

the

bill’s

language

was

modified

to

reach

“performances * * * transmitted” to private households, which, by definition,
includes performances transmitted over the Internet. Family Entertainment and
40
175603.9

Copyright Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-9, § 167, 119 Stat. 218, 223 (2005); see
also ER286. If the Studios are right, adding the transmission language to the FMA
accomplished literally nothing.
The Studios attempt to justify that position through a distortion of legislative
history. Specifically, they rely on the Senate report summarizing the FMA. See 151
Cong. Rec. S450, S501-02 (daily ed. Jan 25, 2005) (statement of Sen. Hatch). The
language in that Report facially most favorable to the Studios—indeed, it is
essentially their whole case—is a mention that “the Act does not provide any
exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions of section 1201 * * * .” Id. at
S502.
That paragraph, however, is entirely consistent with VidAngel’s position. As
explained above, because VidAngel is authorized to decrypt to view a movie, it
circumvents no access control. That reading of authorization is compatible with the
text of the DMCA, and preserves the force of the word “transmitted” in the FMA.
Nothing in the text or legislative history of the FMA rejects that reading of the
DMCA. As such, there would simply be no reason for the FMA to provide an
“exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions of section 1201.”
The Studios conveniently omit other legislative history from the House
Subcommittee where the FMA was introduced and hotly debated—history that

41
175603.9

undermines their reading of section 1201. For example, Congresswoman Lofgren
asked Mr. Aho (then CEO of ClearPlay):
So you don’t have to defeat the encryption that is protecting these
DVDs, for example, although I guess theoretically the movie industry
could go to the next phase of encryption, which would then require you
to defeat that scheme.
Supra n.23 at 73. When Mr. Aho demurred, Congresswoman Lofgren’s response
made clear that she shared VidAngel’s understanding of 1201(a):
All right. Okay. You know, I am interested in this. * * * But I really
think there’s a broader issue here, which is artists are free to create and
express, but consumers who lawfully purchase or rent are not required
to look at all of it. * * * And it seems to me that once you’ve lawfully
purchased something, you have a right to watch some of it, all of it. It’s
your choice. And if you use technology to assist you in making that
choice, it’s still fundamentally your choice on what to see.
Id. at 74. Her point was that the right to filter was not prey to development of
some system of access-control that could render filtering technically impossible.
Yet that is precisely what the Studios ask this Court to bless.
At the end of the day, this exercise illustrates why courts interpret and apply
statutory text, not legislative history. Only the statutory text was passed by both
houses of Congress and signed by the President. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A.
v. United States, 559 U.S. 229, 253 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring). And the text of
section 1201(a) can easily be read in a manner consistent with the FMA. In
contrast, the Studios’ interpretation of the DMCA renders the FMA both
meaningless and superfluous. As such, their interpretation should be rejected. Watt
42
175603.9

v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 267 (1981) (courts “must read the statutes to give effect to
each if [they] can do so while preserving their sense and purpose”).
D.

Any Technical Violation Of Section 1201(a) By VidAngel Is A
Protected Fair Use.

Since the passage of the first Copyright Act in 1790, the text of the statute
has made impermissible numerous activities that are nonetheless socially
beneficial. Thus, the judiciary quickly developed the “fair use” doctrine. Folsom v.
Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 348 (C.C.D. Mass. Oct. 1, 1841). Fair use was exclusively a
common law doctrine until 1976, when it was partially codified. Castle Rock
Entm’t v. Carol Publ’g Grp., 150 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir. 1998).
Consistent with its origin, fair use today ensures the persistence of socially
beneficial conduct even when the Copyright Act textually prohibits such activities.
Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236 (1990). The Supreme Court has also made
clear that fair use is a vital “‘traditional contour’ of copyright protection,” and a
“speech-protective * * * safeguard[],” which, if disturbed, could cause a conflict
with the First Amendment. Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (citation
omitted).

43
175603.9

This Court has expressly left undecided whether fair use applies to the
portion of the Copyright Act containing the DMCA (section 1201). Blizzard, 629
F.3d at 958 n.12. It does.40
All content is now either digital or capable of being digitized, and is thus
capable of being encrypted or otherwise protected by access and copy control
measures. Under the Studios’ interpretation of the DMCA, authorization to decrypt
can be granted conditionally to police content use. Absent a fair use defense,
content creators could prevent anyone anywhere from using their content for any
reason. The Studios want this. But society should not.
For example, an artist who wished to create a parody—a classic fair use—
might purchase and rip a DVD to access its contents for that purpose. Campbell,
510 U.S. 569. The Studios insist that even such a traditional, core fair use would be
prohibited by the DMCA so long as the Studios encrypted the DVD and did not
consent to the artist’s conduct. Such a result would make fair use meaningless.

40

Section 1201(a)(1)(D) is plainly not intended to be the exclusive safeguard
for fair use under the DMCA. Congress instructed the Librarian to determine
whether anti-circumvention adversely affects non-infringing uses “of a particular
class” of works every three years. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C). Not all fair uses can
be identified in advance by class, and many can emerge over three years. This
provision underscores the importance of applying fair use to anti-circumvention
and arms the Librarian to do so in certain settings amenable to rulemaking. It does
not indicate that Congress intended to foreclose this traditional defense in
individual cases.
44
175603.9

Or imagine that someone discovers that Studio executives have circulated to
fringe groups a previously unknown movie that extols election rigging and have
encrypted the DVD to require a ten-digit passcode to view. This individual wants
to decrypt the DVD and circulate newsworthy portions of its contents to the public;
again, a classic fair use. The Studios assert that the DMCA would prohibit such
socially beneficial activity, no matter how newsworthy the underlying content or
how obvious a fair use. That too is not, and should not be, the law.
In short, the Studios assert that the DMCA prohibits socially beneficial
activity no matter how fair the use as long as the Studios withhold their consent to
decrypt in a particular manner. If the fair use doctrine does not apply to the
DMCA, anyone can protect anything from dissemination under the DMCA, and
can stop any fair use in its entirety, through the mere expedient of encrypting the
underlying material. That is surely not the world Congress intended.
Properly construed, the text of the DMCA itself mandates the availability of
a fair use defense. After setting forth the various facial prohibitions of the DMCA
in sections 1201(a) and (b), section 1201(c)(1) provides that “[n]othing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright
infringement, including fair use, under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1)
(emphasis added). The statute thus squarely contemplates a fair use defense.

45
175603.9

The statute refers to claims “under this title,” and the DMCA is indeed under
that title—Title 17 of the U.S. Code (entitled “Copyrights”). Thus, as noted
intellectual property scholar Jane Ginsberg has argued, “the phrase ‘including fair
use,’ as set off in commas, modifies not ‘defenses applicable to copyright
infringement,’ but ‘limitations under * * * this title’”; as a result, “fair use is a
general limitation on rights set out in Title 17 * * * [and] § 1201(c) preserves fair
use as to anti-circumvention as well.” Jane C. Ginsberg, Copyright Use and Excuse
on the Internet, 24 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 8-9 (2000).
Nor does anything else in the text or legislative history of the DMCA
suggest that it does not or should not incorporate the centuries-old doctrine. See,
e.g., Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., The Death of Copyright: Digital Technology, Private
Copying, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 87 Va. L. Rev. 813, 846
(2001) (explaining that Section 1201(c) preserved a fair use defense). The best
interpretation of the DMCA is that it expressly requires consideration of a defense
of fair use to claims under section 1201(a).41

41

That interpretation also avoids running afoul of both the First Amendment
and the limitations of the Copyright Clause itself, which authorizes Congress to
afford copyright protection for a limited time, only “[t]o promote the Progress of
Science.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando
Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216, 1223 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that
“[u]nder the canon of constitutional avoidance, the interpretation of the statute
need not be the best reading, so long as it’s ‘fairly possible,’” and that there is “a
duty to consider constitutional concerns and to adopt an interpretation that avoids
46
175603.9

In any event, nothing in the DMCA prohibits the judicial application of a fair
use defense. See, e.g., Martha A. Field, Sources of Law: The Scope of Federal
Common Law, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 881, 890 (1986) (noting that the creation of federal
common law making, even in the face of hostile substantive provisions, is both
permissible and a core judicial function in the absence of a congressional
command to abstain).
The case for fair use as socially beneficial and even socially necessary is
extremely strong here. Consider: if section 1201(a) is actionable even absent a
nexus to infringing conduct (a question on which this Circuit and the Federal
Circuit disagree), and if the Studios are correct that they can, through conditional
access controls, impose use restrictions under section 1201(a), then nothing but fair
use will allow ecrypted content to be used other than as the Studios bless. It cannot
be that in 1998 Congress, with little fanfare, enacted a statute that, by the expedient
of access-controls, granted content creators the complete control that fair use has
denied them for two centuries. See also Burk & Cohen, Fair Use Infrastructure for
Rights Management Systems, 15 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 41, 46 (2001) (explaining that
fair use was intended to “adapt[] copyright to new technologies that pose
challenges for the traditional copyright framework”).

ruling on the constitutionality of a statute, if we can fairly do so”) (quoting I.N.S. v.
St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299-300 (2001)).
47
175603.9

III.

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding That The Studios
Demonstrated A Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm.
A showing of irreparable harm is “perhaps the single most important

prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction”—and the Studios utterly
failed to make that showing. 11A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995). The district court’s contrary finding rests on a
forbidden presumption, not on actual evidence of impending injury. And the
Studios’ decision to ignore VidAngel fundamentally undermines their position.
A.

Harm Must Be Proven, Not Presumed, And The Studios Offered
No Evidence That VidAngel’s Continued Operation During The
Litigation Was Likely To Cause Irreparable Harm.

The Studios did not prove that VidAngel’s continued operation would cause
irreparable harm to their multibillion-dollar businesses in the short time needed to
reach a final judgment in this case. The district court both effectively adopted an
impermissible presumption of harm and improperly credited the Studios’ vague
and speculative evidence, which lacked any direct connection to VidAngel.
First, by accepting the Studios’ suggestion that mere “copyright
interference” equates with irreparable harm, the district court essentially (and
wrongly) presumed harm. The court reasoned that VidAngel’s operation caused
irreparable injury simply by interfering with the Studios’ “‘ability to control the use
and transmission of their Copyrighted works.’” ER17 (citations omitted). But the
Supreme Court and this Court have unequivocally disallowed presuming
48
175603.9

irreparable harm. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006)
(overruling Federal Circuit’s “categorical grant” of injunctive relief for successful
patent infringement claims); Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654
F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[P]resuming irreparable harm in a copyright
infringement case is inconsistent with, and disapproved by, the Supreme Court’s
opinions in eBay and Winter.”). A party seeking preliminary relief must always
“demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.”
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).
The Studios’ assertion of “copyright interference” as a form of irreparable
harm is nothing more than a presumption by another name. It cannot substitute for
a concrete, specific showing of actual injury. Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 80
(2d Cir. 2010) (rejecting “categorical” rules and holding that a court “must actually
consider the injury the plaintiff will suffer if he or she loses on the preliminary
injunction but ultimately prevails on the merits”); Bethesda Softworks, LLC v.
Interplay Entm’t Corp., 452 F. App’x 351, 355 (4th Cir. 2011) (irreparable harm
may not be “based on the intangible nature of the copyright alone, as such
reasoning would lead to the very presumption that eBay prohibits.”).
Second, the Studios’ vague and speculative evidence did not come close to
showing that VidAngel’s start-up operation poses a real and immediate threat to
their business relationships and goodwill. Again, the teaching of eBay, Winter, and
49
175603.9

Flexible Lifeline is that each part of the preliminary injunction standard must be
applied rigorously. It is not enough to contend that infringing services generally are
a concern or represent a potential loss of licensing revenue. The “extraordinary
remedy” of a preliminary injunction, Winter, 555 U.S. at 24, can be justified only if
VidAngel’s continued operation poses an imminent risk of irreparable injury—that
is, injury that will occur before this litigation is resolved and that cannot be
remedied with money damages.
One critical fact illustrates why this record cannot support a preliminary
injunction: as the Studios concede, no licensee has ever even mentioned, much less
complained about, VidAngel. Their counsel admitted as much at the hearing below:
THE COURT: * * * When you talk about irreparable harm in that
vein, you talk about—and the goodwill, sort of, with licensees. Did—I
just want to make sure I didn’t miss the needle in the haystack of
paper that’s been filed. Have licensees specifically complained? Was
there any sort of declarations that talk about, you know, iTunes,
Amazon, saying, “Hey, what’s going on here? Why am I paying when
so-and-so doesn’t have to do that?” Is there anything like that?
MR. KLAUS: There is not, Your Honor.
ER156. The Studios’ principal witness, Tedd Cittadine, the Senior Vice President
of Digital Distribution at 20th Century Fox,
ER720-21. None of the
other Studios even offered a witness, so Cittadine’s testimony stands as the only

50
175603.9

relevant evidence on this point—
ER566, 720-21.
The crystal-clear record on this point confirms that the district court’s
findings far overstate the evidence. Citing Cittadine’s declaration, the court found
“that unlicensed services like VidAngel’s had been specifically referenced as a
concern during negotiation meetings with licensees” and “VidAngel’s service
undermines Plaintiffs negotiating position with licensees and also damages
goodwill with licensees.” ER18. But Cittadine’s carefully worded declaration
supplies nothing more than generalizations about “unlicensed services.” He says
that Fox’s clients “worry” and “complain about” competing with (unnamed)
unlicensed services. ER560-61. That is hardly surprising, given illegal file-sharing
sites like Pirate Bay that offer free content.
Vague expressions of concern about unlicensed services are not enough. The
Studios proffered no evidence specific to VidAngel and, indeed, supplied no
specifics at all—no evidence of lost customers, no threats to terminate licenses,
and no requests for more favorable terms. At most, the Studios speculated about
their future interests, but speculation does not satisfy the demanding standard for a
preliminary injunction. Amylin Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 456 F. App’x 676,
679 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[E]stablishing a threat of irreparable harm in the indefinite
future is not enough.”).
51
175603.9

Further, the record lacks any evidence that monetary relief would be
inadequate. Between VidAngel’s meticulous records, ER542-43, and the Studios’
knowledge of their licensing fees, monetary damages may readily be calculated
and paid—to the penny—if liability is ultimately found at trial. See ActiveVideo
Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(concluding that district court clearly erred in finding irreparable harm from patent
infringement because the plaintiff “broadly and extensively” pursued license fees
for its technology and “no fact finder could reasonably conclude that [plaintiff]
would be irreparably harmed by the payment of a royalty (a licensing fee)”). So too
here. No injunction is justified.
B.

The Studios’ Year-Plus Delay Precludes A Preliminary Injunction.

Coupled with this scant evidentiary showing, the Studios’ claim of urgency
also lacks credibility, given their previously unhurried approach to VidAngel and
this litigation. This Court has held that “long delay before seeking a preliminary
injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune, Inc.
v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985). That holding fits
perfectly here.
VidAngel sent the Studios detailed letters describing its business model in
the summer of 2015. Disney even opened a VidAngel account then. ER530, 551.
Yet the Studios waited nearly a year before filing suit in June 2016, waited another

52
175603.9

two months before seeking a preliminary injunction, and were content with a threemonth delay to hear that request. If the Studios were truly threatened with
imminent harm, they would have acted expeditiously to protect their rights—not
waited well over a year. Indeed, courts regularly hold that delays of this kind are
sufficient to deny preliminary relief. See 11A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 n.13 (collecting cases).
The Studios persuaded the district court that it was “reasonable” for them to
“monitor” VidAngel and delay filing suit (or, indeed, take any action at all) until
they perceived a “more significant threat.” ER19. But the relevant question is not
whether it was reasonable for the Studios to gamble that VidAngel would disappear
or fail, making litigation unnecessary. Instead, the question here is whether the
Studios can persuasively demonstrate that VidAngel suddenly and inexplicably
morphed from too insignificant to warrant even a cease-and-desist letter, to a
dangerous threat that the Studios cannot withstand for even a few months. They
cannot.
IV.

The Balancing Of Hardships Requires Reversal.
The balancing of the hardships here is stark: the preliminary injunction risks

destroying VidAngel’s business, while leaving it in place until final judgment will
cause little or no harm to the Studios. VidAngel had no choice but to completely
close its streaming business to comply with the preliminary injunction. ER28, 56-

53
175603.9

57. As a result, its customers can no longer watch any streamed movies, not even
the discs they permanently own. ER28. VidAngel’s employees worked nonstop to
comply with the injunction as to the Studios’ works while still streaming other
content, but it was not technologically feasible. ER28, 52-56, 72-74. Every month
that VidAngel is shut down (completely or “just” with respect to 56% of its
business, ER84) it risks the irreparable loss of goodwill, customers, and
employees.
The crippling effect of the preliminary injunction on VidAngel’s business
weighs decisively against the Studios’ belated demand for preliminary injunctive
relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (“[C]ourts must balance the competing claims of
injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of
the requested relief.”). The district court’s failure to consider the injunction’s
devastating consequences for this fledgling business requires reversal. Stormans,
Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he district court has a
duty * * * to balance the interests of all parties and weigh the damage to each.”);
Los Angeles Mem. Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197,
1203 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The district court * * * failed to identify the harms which a
preliminary injunction might cause to defendants and to weigh these against
plaintiff’s threatened injury.”); Int’l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d

54
175603.9

819, 827 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding that in balancing hardships, “relative size and
strength of each enterprise may be pertinent”).
The lower court disregarded the overriding threat to VidAngel’s existence by
reasoning that VidAngel’s practices were likely infringing and thus warranted no
consideration. But that circular reasoning collapses two separate inquiries: the
plaintiff’s likelihood of success and the risk of harm to the defendant if wrongly
enjoined. Winter and eBay, however, confirm that the preliminary injunction
standard must not be collapsed and that traditional equitable principles must be
applied in each case. Winter, 555 U.S. at 23-25; eBay, 547 U.S. at 391-93 (entry of
injunction is not automatic and district court’s “discretion must be exercised
consistent with traditional principles of equity”). The cases cited by the district
court predate Winter and eBay, and their reasoning is accordingly not controlling.
See Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1335-38 (9th Cir.
1995) (applying presumption of irreparable harm and reasoning that harm to
defendant was not cognizable); Apple Comput., Inc. v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d
521, 525 (9th Cir. 1984) (presuming irreparable harm), overruled by Flexible
Lifeline, 654 F.3d at 989.
Instead of ignoring the imminent likelihood that the requested injunction
would put VidAngel out of business, the district court should have denied the
injunction altogether given how sharply the equities favor VidAngel. Cf. Winter,
55
175603.9

555 U.S. at 23 (consideration of public interest and Navy’s interest required
denying injunction, even if plaintiffs had established irreparable harm.). At a
minimum, the court should have applied settled precedent and held the Studios to a
higher standard in showing likelihood of success on the merits, particularly since
the required merits showing in preliminary injunction cases varies with the
“relative hardship to the parties.” Benda v. Grand Lodge of Int’l Ass’n of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 315 (9th Cir. 1978).
VidAngel has relied in good faith on the FMA and Congress’s intent to allow
American families access to filtering technology. The Studios’ case turns on
unsettled questions of law. Where the questions posed are novel and an injunction
would destroy the defendant’s business, equity counsels decisively against the
“extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
IV.

The Injunction Harms The Public Interest.
Finally, the preliminary injunction thwarts viewers’ rights, enshrined in the

FMA, to filter content to which they object, and should be overturned for this
reason alone. When, as here, “‘an injunction is asked which will adversely affect a
public interest * * * the court may in the public interest withhold relief until a final
determination of the rights of the parties, though the postponement may be
burdensome to the plaintiff.’” Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1139 (quoting Weinberger v.
Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312-13 (1982)). “In exercising their sound

56
175603.9

discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public
consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 555
U.S. at 23-24.
This is just such a case. Here, “the impact of an injunction reaches beyond
the parties, carrying with it a potential for public consequences,” Stormans, 586
F.3d at 1138-39, by hampering the right to filter copyrighted content that Congress
codified in the FMA. See Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City of San Francisco, 512
F.3d 1112, 1127 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The public interest may be declared in the form
of a statute.”) (quoting 11A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2948.4, at 207 (2d ed. 1995)). And the Supreme Court has “repeatedly
recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful
materials.” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 875 (1997). VidAngel furthers this
important interest by enabling viewers to effectively outsource on-demand access
to the hardware and knowhow needed to filter out objectionable content.
Significantly, it is the only service currently available that works with mobile
devices, tablets, and SmartTVs—the viewing methods predominantly used by
consumers of all ages. ER480-81, 540.
The district court brushed this key public interest aside, pointing out that
VidAngel could simply provide a service similar to ClearPlay’s. ER20. ClearPlay,
however, relies on YouTube’s streaming platform (which Google owns) and
57
175603.9

therefore works only with Google Play. ER222-23. Before adopting its current
model, VidAngel attempted to create a service like ClearPlay’s, but it was thwarted
and notified that such filtering violated YouTube’s terms of service. ER223, 52458.
Moreover, ClearPlay’s service falls well short of enabling consumers to
enjoy the rights embodied in the FMA. ClearPlay works only with Google Play,
only via a Macintosh or Windows computer using a Google Chrome browser
(rendering it incompatible with most devices and content platforms), and only with
standard-definition content (whereas public demand seeks high-definition and Bluray content). ER222-24, 477-78, 514-19. Moreover, it does not work on more than
9% of the Google Play movie database, including popular titles like the entire Star
Wars collection. ER224. Finally, it is difficult to use, works poorly with certain
platforms it claims compatibility with, and often stops working. ER222-26. It is no
substitute for VidAngel’s user-friendly, effective filtering service, as evidenced by
the strong support VidAngel enjoys from viewers and community leaders, as well
as by the sheer number of customers who use VidAngel rather than ClearPlay. 42
Meanwhile, by requiring VidAngel to shut down its entire business, ER28,
the injunction blocks access to the many thousands of discs in VidAngel’s vault
owned outright by many thousands of VidAngel users and precludes the public
42

See ER350-440.
58

175603.9

from using VidAngel to filter content from the multitude of rights holders not
involved in this litigation. ER83-84. And the ruling threatens to destroy the market
for filtered content, and frustrate the FMA’s policy aim, by chilling the
development of similar technologies.

59
175603.9

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the injunction should be dissolved.
Dated: January 11, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

Brendan S. Maher
[e-mail]
Daniel L. Geyser
[e-mail]
Douglas D. Geyser
[e-mail]
STRIS & MAHER LLP
6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1650
Dallas, TX 75206
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
David W. Quinto
[e-mail]
VIDANGEL, INC.
3007 Franklin Canyon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Ryan Geoffrey Baker
[e-mail]
Jaime Wayne Marquart
[e-mail]
Scott M. Malzahn
[e-mail]
BAKER MARQUART LLP
2029 Century Park East, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Shaun P. Martin
[e-mail]
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO
SCHOOL OF LAW
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
VidAngel, Inc.

60
175603.9

s/ Peter K. Stris
Peter K. Stris
[e-mail]
Elizabeth Rogers Brannen
[e-mail]
Dana Berkowitz
[e-mail]
Victor O’Connell
[e-mail]
STRIS & MAHER LLP
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
There are no known related cases pending in this Court.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Undersigned counsel certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume
limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) and Circuit Court
Rule 32-1 because it contains 13,752 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
Undersigned counsel certifies that this brief complies with the typeface
requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style
requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6) because this brief
has been prepared in a proportionately spaced 14-point Times New Roman
typeface using Microsoft Word 2013.
Dated: January 11, 2017

s/ Peter K. Stris
Peter K. Stris

61
175603.9

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SEALED DOCUMENTS
INTERIM CIRCUIT RULE 27-13
Case Number: 16-56843
Case Title:

VidAngel, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al.

Note: Documents to be filed under seal are to be submitted electronically. As the parties
will not have online access to those documents once they are submitted, the CM/
ECF electronic notice of filing will not act to cause service of those documents
under FRAP 25(c)(2) and Ninth Circuit Rule 25-5(f). Interim Circuit Rule 27-13(c)
therefore requires an alternative method of serving the motion or notice to seal and
the materials to be sealed.
I certify that I have provided a paper copy of the document(s) listed below to all other
parties via personal service, mail, or third-party commercial carrier on the date noted
below. See FRAP 25(c)(1)(A) – (C).
I certify that, having obtained prior consent, I have provided a copy of the document(s)
listed below to all other parties via electronic mail. See FRAP 25(c)(1)(D); Interim
Circuit Rule 27-13(c).
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS:

Motion to File Its Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record, Volume V, Under Seal
Appellant's Opening Brief
Appellant's Opening Brief [Redacted]
Excerpts of Record, Volume V

Signature: s/ Peter K. Stris
(use "s/" format with typed name)

Date:

January 11, 2017