Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Hotfile Corp. et al
Filing
301
MOTION for Summary Judgment >WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)< by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. Responses due by 3/15/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Scott A. Zebrak in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of S. Zebrak, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of S. Zebrak, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Dr. Ian Foster in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 5 Exhibit A to Declaration of I. Foster, # 6 Affidavit Declaration of david Kaplan in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 7 Affidavit Declaration of Kerry Hopkins in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 8 Exhibit A to Declaration of K. Hopkins, # 9 Affidavit Declaration of Jennifer Yeh in Support of Warner's Motion for Summary Judgment (public redacted version), # 10 Exhibit A to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 11 Exhibit B to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 12 Exhibit C to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 13 Exhibit D to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 14 Exhibit E to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 15 Exhibit F to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 16 Exhibit G to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 17 Exhibit H to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 18 Exhibit I to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 19 Exhibit J to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 20 Exhibit K to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 21 Exhibit L to Declaration of J. yeh, # 22 Exhibit M to Declaraton of J. Yeh, # 23 Exhibit N to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 24 Exhibit O to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 25 Exhibit P to declaration of J. Yeh, # 26 Exhibit Q to Declaration of J. Yeh, # 27 Text of Proposed Order)(Stetson, Karen)
EXHIBIT C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMSrrURNOFF
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,
COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., and
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Plaintif,
v.
HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV, and
DOES 1-10.
Defendants.
/
HOTFILE CORP.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Counterdeftndant.
./
RULE 26(a)(2)(ß) REPORT OF DR. RICHARD WATERMAN
I. My name is Richard Waterman and I am an Adjunct Professor of
Wharton School at the University of
Statistics at The
Pennsylvana, and the President and Co-Founder of
Analytic Business Serices, Inc., a consultacy focused on providing expert advice and opinions
in the field of statistical analysis. I received my Ph.D. in Statistics from the Pennsylvania State
University in 1993. I have substantial experience designing and reviewing sampling protocols
for various large organizations, such as the United States Postal Service, for whom I designed
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TUROFF
2
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TUROFF
After the sample had been drawn and the content obtained if available, an analysis of those files
his
was conducted by a copyrght analyst, Mr. Scott Zebrak, supervsing a team in aid of
analysis. Mr. Zebrak's report describing the process he followed and his analysis is attached
the determination of
hereto as Exhibit C. For
the copyrght infrngement status of each fie in the
Mr. Zebrak.
sample, I relied on the work and conclusions of
4. . Based on the analysis of
the contènt fies in the sample, I performed statistical
analyses to derive the results for the infrngement study. Those results are presented below,
beginning with a summar of my opinions and conclusions and followed by a description of the
study, the sampling protocol and analyses, and the bases and reasons for my opinons and
conclusions. In general, in reaching my opinions and conclusions, I relied upon my specialized
knöwledge, education, and experience as applied to the facts and data discussed below, as well as
Mr.
data about downloads from Hotfile produced by defendants, and the work and conclusions of
Zebrak. . The exhibits I may use as a sumar of or in support for my opinions are attached
hereto or are being produced concurently with this Report.
5. Based upon my review of
the most recent data provided by Mr. Zebrak,
approximately 90.3% of all daily downloads of files on Hotfile were downloads of infrnging or
highly likely infringing content; approximately 5.4% of the downloads of fies per day on Hotfle
were downloads of
non-infrnging or highy likely non-infrnging files; and the remaining
approximately 4.3% of
the downloads of
the
copyrght status could not be reliably determined in the time allowed. Of
non-in.:fnging, 0.5% were identified
fies whose
fies per day on Hotfile were downloads of
works classified as
as being likely ilegal to distrbute, making the infrngement
analysis here conserative. Ths analysis was based on data showing downloads of fies that was
provided by Hotfile.
3
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TUROFF
6. The following describes the processes I used to design the sampling protocol and
select the sample for the study:
7. The first step in devising the sampling protocol was to define the relevant
population of interest from which the sample would be extracted, and to ensure the population
was accurately represented in the sampling frame. Since the objective of the Hotfile study was
to analyze the daily percentage of downloads of files from Hotfile that were of infrnging files,
the population of interest consists of downloads of fies from Hotfile in a specified time prior to
the complaint, Januar 201 1.
8. While defendants did not produce actual log data for the perod before February
2011, they did produce a data table called "dailydownload", that efficiently summarzes all the
necessary information that would be found in a log file to enable an infrngement analysis of the
recorded downloads. My understanding is that ths table identifies fies that were downloaded in
a specific day (represented in the "uploadid" field), the date of download (represented in the
"date" field), and the number of
"premium" and "free" downloads of
the files (represented in the
"premium" and "free" fields). My understanding is that "premium" and "free" downloads are
downloads by different kinds of
users: those who have purchased Hotfile Premium
subscriptions, and those that have not, respectively. Adding the two together gives the number
of recorded downloads per day for the fie on the indicated date. Thus, the "dailydownload" data
contains a summary of information of recorded downloads by file for any paricular day.
9. To understand the level of infrgig activity on Hotfile prior to filing the
complaint I looked at the month of activity prior to the complaint filing, Januar 201 1. In order
to understand the number of downoads per day in this month, I loòked at different random days
4
CASE NO. 11-20427- WILLIAMS/TUROFF
in the month, and took a sample of downloads from each of those days. I designed the protocol
to randomly select five weekdays and two weekend days.
10. In the first step of
the protocol, I randomly selected five weekdays and two
weekend days, by consecutively assignng each weekday in Januar 2011 a number and
consecutively assigning each weekend day in January 2011 a number. I then used a standard
random number generator to generate a separate list of numbers for the set of weekdays and the
set of
weekend days. This is a standard and unversally accepted means to generate a simple
random sample. The days selected by ths process were Januar 5, 11,20,21, and 24
(weekdays) and Januar 1 and 30 (weekend days).
11. Overall, the "dailydownload" table shows 145,691,820 downloads of
files
from
Hotfle in the month of Januar 2011. On each date selected, the "dailydownload" table shows
the number of
recorded downoads of
fies per day. The combination of
"premium" downloads per day for the selected days were as follows:
Date
Download Count
2011-Jan-01
4,180,329
2011-Jan-05
4,677,811
20 11 ~J an-ll
4,568,087
2011-Jan-20
4,496,274
2011-Jan-21.
4,631,944
201l-Jan-24
4,738,937
2011-Jan-30
5,125,537
5
the "free" and
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
12. Within each selected day, the
sample frame was obtained by taking the
dailydownload data and expanding the record of each fie to capture the total number of recorded
downloads of
that file on that day. For example, if a fie was downloaded 5 times in a day, the
that file. This method permits
record would be expanded to reflect five separate downloads of
simple random sampling of the complete set of recorded downloads of all files in a day. The
sample size was selected to obtain a 95% confdence interal with a margin of error of plus or
the consistency of daily download infrngement proportions, the final
minus 5%. (Because of
margin of error of
the study was considerably smaller.) Ths allows for a high level of
confidence that the results of
the study reflect the percentage of
infrnging downloads per
day for
any day in the entire population, together with a high level otprecision. To target this level of
precision, I concluded that the Hotfie sample size should be i 750 (250 per day), which is also
consistent with sample sizes in other similar online infrngement studies conducted in other
cases.
13. I used "simple random sampling" to draw the sample within each day. "Simple
random sampling" is a universally accepted statistical methodology in which each item has the
same opportunity to be chosen as any other item. In this case, each download of a fie in a
paricular day had the same chance to be chosen as any other download of any file within that
day. For each day, I used a standard random number generator to generate a list of numbers to
select the downloads that constitute the sample. This too is a standard and universally accepted
means to generate a simple random sample.
14. I am attaching herewith as Exhibit D the download instrctions that implement
the sampling protocol I have described in the foregoing for theHotfile study. The protocol
provides for replacement of
fies in the sample under only limited circumstances. First, if
6
the fie
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
appeared by its metadata to contain child or other ilegal pornography, it was not included in the
sample. Second, if the content fie was corrpt, inoperable, or unplayable/undisplayable, for
reasons other than being password-protected or encryted, it Was not included in the sample.. In
those cases, the files were replaced in the sample by another randomly selected file according to
the protocol.
the 1750
15. Mr. Zebrak provided an analysis showing his conclusions as to which of
sample fies analyzed were determined to be either confirmed or highy likely copyrght
infrngig, with the result broken down by download date. He also provided information as to
which fies he classified as highy likely or confirmed non-infrnging, those "unkowable" fies
as to which no determination could be made, and "ì1egal" fies that did not appear to be
copyrght infrnging but that Mr. Zebrak concluded were likely ì1egal to distribute for other
reasons. The infrngement determinations of each download by day are itemized in the attached
Exhibit E.
16. Based upon my review of
the most recent data provided by Mr. Zebrak, by doing
the calculations described above, I am able to conclude that approximately 90.3% of all daily
downloads of files on Hotfile were downloads of infrnging or highy likely infrnging content;
approximately 5.4% of
the downoads of
fies per day on Hotfile were downloads of
the
infrnging or highy likely non-infrnging files; and the remaining approximately 4.3% of
downloads of
fies whose copyrght status could not
files per day on Hotfile were downloads of
be reliably determined in the tie allowed. Of
non-
the works classified as non-infnging, 0.5% (nine
files in the study) were identified as being likely ilegal to distrbute.
7
CASE NO.11-20427-WILLIAMS/TUROFF
17. Using standard and
universally accepted statistical methods to calculate a margin
of error at a 95% confidence level yields a margin of error for ths study of approximately 1.3%.
This indicates a high level of reliability.
i 8. In my professional opinion, the sampling procedures used in the Hotfle study are
based on stadard and univèrsally accepted statistical methods, and provide a scientifically valid
sample from which we can reliably estimate the incídents of copyrght infrngement though the
Hotfie website.
19. I continue to consider additional statistical analyses that might be conducted with
additional data and/or time, including as to fies that may been uploaded to Hotfile but not
downloaded, and reserve the right to supplement this report based on such further analyses. I
further resere the right to supplement or modify this reprt based on additional information that
may come to light or based on fuher analyses.
8
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLlAMS'TURNOFF
II
Dated: Kovembertt: 2011
t2~
Richard Waterman, Ph.D.
9
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMSITURNOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. i 1-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTUY FOX FILM CORPORATION,
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,
COLUMBIA PICTURES INUSTRIS, INC., and
WARER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
Plaintif,
v.
HOTFILE CORP., ANTON TITOV, and
DOES 1-10.
Defendants.
/
HOTFILE CORP.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
WARER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., .
Counterdefendant.
/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
November, 201 i, I served the following
I HEREBY CERTIFY on this 18th day of
document on all counsel of
record on the attched service list via the Cour's CMlCF fiing
system:
RULE 26(a)(2)(B) REPORT OF DR. RICHAR WATERM
I fuer certify that I am admitted to the United States Cour for the Southern Distrct of Florida
and certify that this Certificate of Service was executed ~s date.
By: ??~
D~Pozz
10
CASE NO. 11-20427-WILLIAMS/TURNOFF
SERVICE LIST
Disney Enterprises, Inc., et aI. v. Hotfle Corp. et at.
CASE NO.
ll-CIV-20427-WILLIAMS-TUROFF
FARELLA BRAUN + MATEL,LLP
Anthony P. Schoenberg
tschoenberg@fbm.com
Roderick M. Thompson
rthompson@fbm.com
N. Andrew Leibnitz
aleibnitz@fbm.com
Deepak Gupta
dguta@fbm.com
Janel Thamul
jthamkul@fbm.com
235 Montgomery Street
Sai Francisco, CA 94104
RASCO
KLOCK
Janet T. Muo
jmun@rascoklock.com
283 Catalonia Ave., Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: 305-476-7101
Fax: 305-476-7102
Attorney for Defendants Hotfle Corp. and
Anton Titov
Phone: 4 i 5-954-4400
Attorneys for Defendants Hotfle Corp. and
Anton Titov
BOSTON LAW GROUP, PC
Valentin Gurits
. vgurvits@bostonlawgroup.com
825 Beacon Street, Suite 20
Newton Centre, MA 02459
Phone: 617-928- 1 804
Attorneys for Defendants Hotfle Corp. and
Anton Titov
II
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?