Warner V Tusa Preliminary Inj Motion

Case 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS Document 13 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:90
1 KELLY KLAUS (SBN 161091)

Kelly.Klaus@mto.com
2 ROSE LEDA EHLER (SBN 296523)
Rose.Ehler@mto.com
3 OLIVER BROWN (SBN 335952)
Oliver.Brown@mto.com
4 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
6 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 WESTERN DIVISION
12
13 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS
INC.; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS
14 LLC; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS
PRODUCTIONS LLLP; UNIVERSAL NOTICE OF MOTION AND
15 CONTENT PRODUCTIONS LLC; MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
UNIVERSAL TELEVISION LLC;
16 AMAZON CONTENT SERVICES INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM
LLC; COLUMBIA PICTURES OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
17 INDUSTRIES, INC.; DISNEY IN SUPPORT THEREOF
ENTERPRISES, INC.; NETFLIX
18 STUDIOS, LLC; OPEN 4 BUSINESS
PRODUCTIONS LLC; PARAMOUNT Judge: Hon. Virginia A. Phillips
19 PICTURES CORPORATION; Date: Aug. 9, 2021
SCREEN GEMS, INC.; and SONY Time: 2:00 p.m.
20 PICTURES ANIMATION INC.,
Courtroom: 8A
21 Plaintiffs,
Filed concurrently herewith:
22 vs. (1) [Proposed] Preliminary Injunction
(2) Declaration of Patrick Perkins
23 JASON TUSA; and DOES 1-10 d/b/a (3) Declaration of Jan van Voorn
ALTERED.CARBON TV, DIGITAL (4) Declaration of Rose Leda Ehler
24 UNICORN MEDIA, SINGULARITY
MEDIA, and AREA 51, Trial Date: None Set
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 9, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon
3 thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Honorable Virginia A. Phillips in
4 Courtroom 8A of the United States District Court for the Central District of
5 California, located at First Street Courthouse, 350 W. First Street, Los Angeles,
6 California 90012, Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; Universal City Studios
7 LLC; Universal City Studios Productions LLLP; Universal Content Productions
8 LLC; Universal Television, LLC; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Disney
9 Enterprises, Inc.; Open 4 Business Productions LLC; Paramount Pictures
10 Corporation; Screen Gems, Inc. and Sony Pictures Animation Inc. (collectively,
11 “Plaintiffs”), will, and hereby do, move for a Preliminary Injunction:
12 [1] Enjoining Defendant Jason Tusa and Does 1-10, d/b/a Altered Carbon
13 TV (collectively, “Tusa”), and all individuals acting in concert or participation or
14 privity with Tusa, including Tusa’s affiliates and resellers, from publicly
15 performing, reproducing, distributing, or otherwise directly or indirectly infringing
16 in any manner (including without limitation by materially contributing to or
17 intentionally inducing the infringement of) any of Plaintiffs’ rights under the
18 Copyright Act in any motion picture, the rights to which Plaintiffs own or control
19 (“Copyrighted Works”); and
20 [2] Enjoining Internet Domain Service BS Corp., Hostinger International,
21 Ltd., and Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider Registrar, the respective
22 domain name registrars for the Altered Carbon Websites,1 as well as others who
23 receive notice of the Court’s order, from allowing the Altered Carbon Websites to
24 be modified, sold, transferred to another owner, or deleted, and also requiring them
25 to disable access to the Altered Carbon Websites.
26
1
Tusa owns or controls several internet domains that he uses in his infringing
27 enterprise: alteredcarbon.online, 2pmtoforever.com, catchingbutterflies.host,
stealingkisses.me, dum.world, and twoavocados.us (together “Altered Carbon
28 Websites”). Declaration of Jan van Voorn ¶ 8.
1 This Motion is made on the following grounds as explained in the

2 accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting papers:
3 (1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the evidence clearly shows
4 that Tusa, without authorization from Plaintiffs, transmits performances of the
5 Copyrighted Works to members of the public, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive
6 rights to publicly perform the Copyrighted Works, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4); (2) absent a
7 preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, including with respect
8 to their ability to exercise their exclusive rights, and their relationships and goodwill
9 with authorized licensees; (3) the balance of the equities tips decidedly in Plaintiffs’
10 favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
11 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached
12 Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declarations of Jan van Voorn (“Van
13 Voorn Decl.”), Patrick Perkins (“Perkins Decl.”), and Rose Leda Ehler (“Ehler
14 Decl.”), and Exhibits to all such Declarations; all documents on file in this action;
15 and such further or additional evidence or argument as may be presented before or at
16 the time of the hearing on this Motion.
17
18 DATED: July 8, 2021 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
19
20
By: /s/ Rose Leda Ehler
21
ROSE LEDA EHLER
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES............................................. 1
4 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
5 FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 3
6 A. Plaintiffs and Their Copyrighted Works ................................................. 3
7 B. Tusa’s History of Launching Infringing Streaming Services ................. 4
8 C. Altered Carbon Is Tusa’s Latest Infringing Streaming Service.............. 6
9 D. Tusa’s Expanding Network of Affiliates and Resellers Threatens
to Cause Plaintiffs Substantial, Ongoing, and Irreparable Harm............ 8
10
E. Tusa Knows What He Is Doing Is Illegal ............................................... 9
11
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 10
12
I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS ................. 11
13
A. Plaintiffs Own or Control Valid Copyrights in the Works that
14 Tusa Exploits......................................................................................... 11
15 B. Tusa Directly Infringes Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right of Public
Performance .......................................................................................... 12
16
II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT AN
17 INJUNCTION ................................................................................................. 14
18 III. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIP FACTOR IS DECIDEDLY IN
PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR. .................................................................................. 18
19
IV. AN INJUNCTION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST...................... 18
20
RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................................................. 19
21
A. Plaintiffs Request An Injunction That Protects Their Copyrights ........ 19
22
B. No Bond Should Be Required............................................................... 20
23
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 20
24
25
26
27
28
-i- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 FEDERAL CASES
4 Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,
5 573 U.S. 431 (2014) ....................................................................................... 12, 14
6 Amazon Content Servs., LLC v. Set Broad., LLC,

No. 2:18-cv-03325-MWF-ASx, ECF No. 59 (C.D. Cal. July 31,
7
2019) ....................................................................................................................... 2
8
Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
9 673 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2009).................................................................. 18
10
Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC,
11 No. 06 CV 5936 (KMW), 2011 WL 1641978 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29,
2011) ..................................................................................................................... 13
12
13 Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc.,
633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .................................................................. 13
14
Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp.,
15
125 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 18
16
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Galindo (Nitro TV),
17 No. 2:20-cv-03129-SVW-GJS, 2020 WL 3124347 (C.D. Cal. May
18 11, 2020) .................................................................................................... 2, passim
19 Diaz v. Brewer,
20 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 20
21 Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al .v TTKN Enterprises, LLC (Crystal Clear

Media),
22 No. 2:20-7274-GW-JPRx (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) ............................................ 2
23
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel Inc.,
24 No. 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLAx, ECF No. 520 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5,
25 2019) ....................................................................................................................... 2
26 Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,

224 F. Supp. 3d 957 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir.
27 2017) ................................................................................................... 11, 12, 15, 16
28
-ii- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(Continued)
2 Page(s)
3 Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,
869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 11, 19
4
5 Eldred v. Ashcroft,
537 U.S. 186 (2002) ............................................................................................. 19
6
Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. BarryDriller Content Sys., PLC,
7
915 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (C.D. Cal. 2012) .............................................. 12, 14, 16, 17
8
Johnson v. Couturier,
9 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 20
10
Kelly v. Primco Mgmt., Inc.,
11 No. CV-1407263 BRO, 2015 WL 10990368 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12,
2015) ..................................................................................................................... 19
12
13 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
518 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................ 18
14
Nat’l Football League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture,
15
211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2000) ................................................................................... 14
16
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Omniverse World Television, Inc.,
17 No. 2:19-cv-01156-MWF-ASx, ECF No. 60 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14,
18 2019) ....................................................................................................................... 2
19 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
20 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 11
21 Showtime Networks Inc. v. Doe,

No. 2:15-CV-03147-GW-MRW, 2015 WL 12646501 (C.D. Cal.
22 Apr. 30, 2015) ....................................................................................................... 20
23
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co.,
24 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 18
25 United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc.,
26 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 11
27
28
-iii- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

(Continued)
2 Page(s)
3 Universal City Studios Prods. LLLP v. TickBox TV LLC,
No. 2:17-cv-07496-MWF-ASx, ECF No. 72 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12,
4
2018) ........................................................................................................... 3, 12, 17
5
Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. WTV Sys., Inc. (Zediva),
6 824 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................. 12, 14, 15, 16
7
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
8 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ..................................................................................... 11, 18, 19
9 WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.,
10 691 F. 3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 14
11 FEDERAL STATUTES
12 17 U.S.C. § 101(2) ..................................................................................................... 12
13
17 U.S.C. § 106.......................................................................................................... 11
14
17 U.S.C. § 106(4) ........................................................................................... 3, 12, 14
15
17 U.S.C. § 117(c) ..................................................................................................... 18
16
17 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ..................................................................................................... 11
18 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) ..................................................................................................... 10
19 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) ..................................................................................................... 17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-iv- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 INTRODUCTION
3 Tusa is a serial copyright infringer. He has launched one illicit streaming
4 service after another and profited from the exploitation of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
5 motion pictures and television shows (“Copyrighted Works”). Plaintiffs tried to get
6 Tusa to stop without the need for court intervention by confronting him with his
7 illegal conduct. Tusa acknowledged infringing conduct and even signed an
8 agreement in which he promised not to launch another illegal streaming service.
9 But Tusa has not stopped his infringing activities. Tusa has simply rebranded his
10 service under new names, tried harder to cover his tracks, and continued violating
11 Plaintiffs’ rights. Tusa’s most recent illegal streaming service—his fourth in the last
12 year alone—is called Altered.Carbon TV (“Altered Carbon”). That Altered Carbon
13 infringes is obvious—it is engaged in unauthorized streaming of Plaintiffs’
14 Copyrighted Works, including just as an example, Disney’s Wreck-It Ralph:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1 Enough is enough. Tusa’s repeated mass infringement of Plaintiffs’

2 Copyrighted Works, despite written agreements to the contrary, demonstrates his
3 willful disregard for the law and the need for immediate injunctive relief.
4 Altered Carbon offers access to illegal streams of over 2,600 live television
5 channels for a $7-to-$10 monthly subscription fee. Altered Carbon’s customers
6 access this copyrighted content through branded applications that download onto
7 smart TVs, computers, and mobile devices (the “Altered Carbon Platforms”), and
8 through a web portal, which provides direct access to the streams originating from
9 Tusa’s servers (the “Portal URL”). Tusa’s offerings feature popular motion pictures
10 movies and television shows, including huge numbers of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted
11 Works. The Copyrighted Works that Tusa infringes include, among many others,
12 Warner Bros.’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Universal’s The Office, and
13 Paramount’s The Godfather Part III. The scope of Tusa’s infringement continues to
14 grow as he expands his customer-base through a network of affiliates and resellers
15 acting on his behalf.
16 The case for immediate injunctive relief here is overwhelming.2 Tusa has
17 admitted his infringement, and his ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ public
18
19 2
Tusa follows the path of other infringers who offer illegal online streaming
20 services that steal Plaintiffs’ content to reap ill-gotten profits. Plaintiffs have been
forced to pursue multiple actions against such operators and their services,
21 successfully seeking injunctive relief to stop this brazenly illegal activity. See
22 Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al .v TTKN Enterprises, LLC (Crystal Clear Media), No.
2:20-7274-GW-JPRx (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (permanent injunction); Columbia
23 Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Galindo (Nitro TV), No. 2:20-cv-03129-SVW-GJS, 2020
24 WL 3124347 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) (preliminary injunction); see Paramount
Pictures Corp. v. Omniverse World Television, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01156-MWF-ASx,
25 ECF No. 60 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) (permanent injunction); Amazon Content
26 Servs., LLC v. Set Broad., LLC, No. 2:18-cv-03325-MWF-ASx, ECF No. 59 (C.D.
Cal. July 31, 2019) (permanent injunction); Netflix v. Dragon Media Inc. (Dragon
27 Box), No. 2:18-cv-00230-MWF-ASx, ECF No. 59 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019)
28 (permanent injunction); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-
-2- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 performance rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4), is indisputable.

2 The Altered Carbon service inflicts irreparable harm on Plaintiffs, undermining their
3 relationships with licensees and reducing demand for authorized access to
4 Copyrighted Works, including by interfering with exclusive periods and geographic
5 restrictions. The extent of that harm will worsen if Tusa is not enjoined. Plaintiffs
6 satisfy each of the Winter elements for preliminary injunctive relief and respectfully
7 request the Court grant this motion and enter the concurrently filed proposed
8 injunction.
9 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 A. Plaintiffs and Their Copyrighted Works
11 Plaintiffs or their affiliates produce and distribute a significant portion of the
12 world’s most popular movies and television programs. Declaration of Patrick
13 Perkins (“Perkins Decl.”) ¶ 4. The development, production, and distribution of
14 these works requires substantial, ongoing investment. Id. ¶ 5. Copyright protection
15 therefore is of critical importance to Plaintiffs’ ability to earn a return on their
16 investments and to invest in new projects. Id.
17 Plaintiffs or their affiliates own or control the exclusive rights to reproduce,
18 distribute, and publicly perform the Copyrighted Works, including by means of
19 streaming performances of the Copyrighted Works over the internet. Declaration of
20 Rose Leda Ehler ¶¶ 2-110, Exs. 1-109; Perkins Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs authorize the
21 legitimate distribution and public performance of the Copyrighted Works in various
22 formats and through multiple distribution channels, including through cable and
23 direct-to-home satellite services, authorized internet VOD services, and authorized
24 internet or over-the-top (“OTT”) streaming services, among many others. Perkins
25 Decl. ¶ 6.
26
27 04109-AB-PLAx, ECF No. 520 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019) (permanent injunction);
Universal City Studios Prods. LLLP v. TickBox TV LLC , No. 2:17-cv-07496-MWF-
28 ASx, ECF No. 72 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018) (permanent injunction).
-3- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Plaintiffs have not authorized Tusa or any of his streaming services, including
2 Altered Carbon, to exercise any of their rights to the Copyrighted Works. Id. ¶ 4.
3 B. Tusa’s History of Launching Infringing Streaming Services
4 Altered Carbon is not Tusa’s first offering that infringes Plaintiffs’ rights.
5 Within the last year, Tusa has operated at least three other unauthorized streaming
6 services—Area 51, Singularity Media, and Digital UniCorn Media. Each time
7 Plaintiffs uncovered one of these services, Tusa took it offline, rebranded, and
8 launched a new service. Here is the history:
9 In June 2020, Plaintiffs confronted Tusa about his first infringing service,
10 which was called Area 51. Area 51 streamed live television channels over the
11 internet (an “IPTV,” or “Internet Protocol Television” service), as well as movies
12 and TV shows at the time customers demanded them (“VOD” for “video-on-
13 demand”). Van Voorn Decl. ¶ 30. Tusa used Area 51 to stream infringing
14 performances of the Copyrighted Works to Tusa’s paying subscribers via a custom
15 application and web player. Id. ¶ 30, Ex. 14. Tusa publicly flaunted his connections
16 to the illicit service and the apparent profits he was making. For example, his social
17 media profiles showed him purchasing luxury cars with customized Area 51
18 branding. Id. ¶ 31, Ex. 15.
19 Tusa shut Area 51 down soon after Plaintiffs contacted him. He then hired a
20 lawyer to negotiate a settlement with Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 32.
21 At the same time he was professing to have learned his lesson, Tusa was
22 secretly rebranding his service so he could resume his infringing conduct. In July
23 2020, Tusa sent Area 51 subscribers an email, telling them a new service,
24 Singularity Media (“Singularity”), had “taken over” their accounts. Id. ¶¶ 33–34,
25 Ex. 16. The email provided instructions for downloading a Singularity IPTV
26 application, which Area 51 subscribers could access using their existing login
27 credentials. Id.
28
-4- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Plaintiffs learned what Tusa was up to and again demanded that he stop his
2 infringing activity. In July 2020, Tusa shut down Singularity. Id. ¶ 35, Ex. 17.
3 On October 12, 2020, Tusa entered into a settlement agreement with
4 Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 36. Tusa agreed, among other things, to cease his infringing
5 conduct. Plaintiffs retained their right to sue Tusa in the event that he breached this
6 agreement (as he has done since). See Dkt. 1-1, Ex. B to Complaint (sealed).
7 Still, Tusa did not stop infringing. After the settlement agreement was
8 executed, Plaintiffs discovered that Tusa had launched yet another infringing
9 service—his third in less than six months. Tusa called this service Digital UniCorn
10 Media (“DUM”). Id. ¶ 37. DUM offered IPTV applications similar to Tusa’s two
11 preceding services. Id. ¶ 37, Ex. 18. Plaintiffs confirmed Tusa’s ownership of
12 DUM through his social media posts and registration of the DUM web domains, as
13 well as through internet protocol tracking. Id. ¶ 38, Ex. 19.
14 Plaintiffs demanded that Tusa shut down DUM. Id. ¶ 39. Through counsel,
15 Tusa denied responsibility for DUM so Plaintiffs sent a second cease-and-desist
16 letter, outlining his obvious ties to the service. The day after Plaintiffs sent this
17 letter, DUM went offline and Tusa posted the following farewell message to his
18 Instagram account:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Id. ¶ 40, Ex. 20.
-5- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 C. Altered Carbon Is Tusa’s Latest Infringing Streaming Service

2 Tusa’s most recent departure from the infringing streaming business has again
3 been short lived. Plaintiffs recently discovered that Tusa has launched yet another
4 infringing service, his fourth in less than a year. This one is called Altered Carbon.
5 Id. ¶ 41.
6 Altered Carbon is a quintessential unauthorized streaming service. Altered
7 Carbon provides its paying subscribers with IPTV transmissions of thousands of
8 channels that run television shows and motion pictures 24/7, including thousands of
9 Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works. This is how Altered Carbon works:
10 Potential customers can find and subscribe to Altered Carbon through its
11 public-facing website, 2pmtoforever.com. Van Voorn Decl. ¶¶ 12–13. Tusa offers
12 three subscription packages (cryptically described as “Advanced Hosting” packages)
13 at prices ranging from $7 to $10 per month. Id. ¶ 14. The “most popular” $10
14 subscription includes three connections to the full suite of channels, as well as pay-
15 per-view events. Id. ¶ 14, Ex. 1.
16 After purchasing an Altered Carbon subscription, subscribers receive a
17 confirmation email containing their login credentials. Id. ¶ 15, Ex. 2. The email
18 also instructs subscribers how to download the most appropriate Altered Carbon
19 Platform for their preferred viewing device. Id. Upon visiting one of the Altered
20 Carbons Platforms and entering login credentials, subscribers see a welcome screen,
21 which invites them to access IPTV streaming by selecting “LIVE TV.” Id. ¶ 16, Ex.
22 3.
23 Altered Carbon provides approximately 2,600 television channels for
24 immediate streaming. Id. ¶ 17. Subscribers can browse channels through a user-
25 friendly interface that organizes content by nationality and genre, or search for
26 specific titles via a search bar. Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 4. Altered Carbon also provides a “TV
27 Guide” view, which enables subscribers to browse scheduled programming in the
28 same manner as they would with a traditional cable device.
-6- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Id.
12 Altered Carbon offers major networks, including ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox,
13 as well as paid channels, such as BET, SyFy, USA Network, and premium channels
14 like HBO and Showtime. Id. ¶ 18. In addition, Altered Carbon provides daily
15 access to hundreds of live sportscasts and pay-per view events. Id. All of this
16 content is streamed in high definition and with little to no delay. Id. ¶ 18, Ex. 5.
17 Here is a screen capture of Columbia’s Spider-Man 2 streaming through one of the
18 fourteen Starz channels available on Altered Carbon, with even more of Plaintiffs’
19 popular Copyrighted Works—including Universal City Studios’ Miami Vice and
20 Knight Rider—listed as upcoming programming.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 4.
11 Altered Carbon admits that it is the source of the infringing streams. In online
12 forums, Altered Carbon has distinguished itself from other IPTV services by stating,
13 “[w]e source everything ourselves” and claiming to be “one of two main suppliers
14 of all US channels.” Id. ¶ 21, Ex. 8. Tusa has even posted videos on social media
15 that show him sourcing Altered Carbon’s infringing content by wiring together
16 cable boxes. Id. ¶ 22, Ex. 9.
17 Tusa’s disregard for the law is flagrant. Tusa’s recidivism makes it clear that
18 he will not live up to his word to be out of the infringement business.
19 D. Tusa’s Expanding Network of Affiliates and Resellers Threatens to
Cause Plaintiffs Substantial, Ongoing, and Irreparable Harm
20
21 In addition to his own direct-to-consumer offering, Tusa is growing a network
22 of “affiliates” and “resellers” who market and promote Altered Carbon to attract
23 new subscribers to the illegal service. Van Voorn Decl. ¶ 25. Tusa uses his
24 affiliate/reseller network to expand the reach of his illegal service in two ways:
25 First, Tusa operates an affiliate referral program, which pays a commission to
26 any affiliate who encourages another individual to subscribe to Altered Carbon. Id.
27 ¶ 26. Affiliates register to participate in this program through the Altered Carbon
28 Websites and receive a customized sign-up link from Tusa. Id. ¶ 26, Ex. 12.
-8- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Affiliates then advertise Altered Carbon to members of their own social networks
2 and earn a commission whenever customers subscribe using the affiliates’ unique,
3 sign-up links. Id. ¶ 26.
4 Second, Tusa allows individuals to become resellers of Altered Carbon
5 subscriptions. Tusa’s “Reseller Plans,” available through the Altered Carbon
6 Websites, offer bundles of monthly subscription “credits.” Id. ¶ 27. The resellers
7 then sell the subscription credits to their own network of clients, who can exchange
8 each credit for a month of access to Tusa’s IPTV Service. Id. Tusa encourages
9 resellers to buy more credits by offering volume discounts. Id. For example, the
10 standard reseller plan includes 70 credits and wholesales for $450.00 ($6.42 per
11 credit); an “enhanced” reseller plan includes 150 credits and wholesales for $700.00
12 ($4.66 per credit). Id. ¶ 27, Ex. 13. Resellers can market and sell these credits to
13 end purchasers at a markup and pocket the difference. For example, if an
14 “enhanced” reseller buys 150 credits and resells them for $10 each, the reseller
15 makes $5.44 per credit. Id. Tusa, of course, makes money regardless of whether the
16 subscription credits actually get resold.
17 The affiliate/reseller programs benefit Tusa in two ways: (1) they expand his
18 customer base and profits, since every end purchaser has an incentive to continue
19 paying a monthly subscription to continue their illegal access to Tusa’s IPTV
20 Service; and (2) the affiliates and resellers put a buffer between Tusa and the end
21 purchasers, allowing him to operate in what he believes to be a clandestine fashion.
22 Meanwhile, the affiliate/reseller program multiplies the harms to Plaintiffs by
23 increasing the infringing reach of Tusa’s IPTV Services.
24 E. Tusa Knows What He Is Doing Is Illegal
25 Plaintiffs have confronted Tusa with evidence of his infringing conduct
26 multiple times. Each time, Tusa claims he is permanently shutting down his illegal
27 operation, only to resume it with a different name. Van Voorn Decl. ¶¶ 34, 37, and
28 41.
-9- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Tusa has tried to conceal his connections to Altered Carbon. See id. ¶ 42. For
2 example, Tusa has privacy protected all of the Altered Carbon Websites, relied on
3 cryptocurrency-based transactions with subscribers, and limited his personal
4 communication regarding the service to a private group on the encrypted messaging
5 platform, Telegram. Id. ¶ 42, Ex. 22.
6 Despite Tusa’s efforts to conceal his involvement with Altered Carbon, the
7 evidence makes it clear that he is responsible for this service, as he was for each of
8 its predecessors. Altered Carbon’s public-facing website (2pmtoforever.com) looks
9 virtually identical to the DUM website (dum.world). Accessing the Altered Carbon
10 service through a particular platform (“BlueStacks”) even results in a viewer/player
11 that features the same DUM logo, along with the Altered Carbon branding.
12 Likewise, Altered Carbon’s IP address, hosting service, and channel offerings 3 are
13 all consistent with Tusa’s past infringing services. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 45–48, Exs. 24–
14 25. In his online chats, Tusa has made clear that he is the force behind Altered
15 Carbon. Id. ¶ 44, Ex. 23 (Tusa speaking on behalf of Altered Carbon in a Telegram
16 chat using his personal username (@krazinabox)). Additional evidence that
17 decisively identifies Tusa as Altered Carbon’s owner and operator is detailed in the
18 Declaration of Jan van Voorn (paragraphs 41 to 48).
19 Tusa’s ineffectual attempts to disguise his infringing activity do not change
20 his liability. Rather, his increased efforts to hide his involvement in Altered Carbon
21 show that he knows his conduct is unlawful.
22 ARGUMENT
23 The Copyright Act authorizes courts to grant injunctive relief “to prevent or
24 restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). Plaintiffs meet the
25 standard for preliminary injunctive relief: “(1) [they are] likely to succeed on the
26
27 Altered Carbon’s channel offerings generally track those of Tusa’s past services,
3
and many of the advertisements that appear through those channels run in Naples,
28 Florida, where Tusa is located.
-10- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS
1 merits, (2) [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
2 relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and (4) an injunction is in the
3 public interest.” Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. (VidAngel II), 869 F.3d 848,
4 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
5 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
6 I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS
7 Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their infringement claim because they
8 can easily show (1) “ownership of the allegedly infringed material” and (2) that
9 Tusa “violate[s] at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17
10 U.S.C. § 106.” VidAngel II, 869 F.3d at 856 (quoting Perfect 10, Inc. v.
11 Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007)).
12 A. Plaintiffs Own or Control Valid Copyrights in the Works that Tusa
Exploits
13
14 Plaintiffs have included certificates of registration issued by the Copyright
15 Office for the Copyrighted Works identified in the Complaint with this filing. 4
16 Declaration of Rose Leda Ehler, ¶¶ 2-110; Exs. 1-109. The certificates create a
17 presumption of copyright validity and ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); United
18 Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011); Disney
19 Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. (VidAngel I), 224 F. Supp. 3d 957, 969 (C.D. Cal.
20 2016) (“Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated ownership of the copyrighted
21 works identified in the complaint by providing certificates of registration issued by
22 the Copyright Office.”), aff’d, 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017).
23
24
25
26 Exhibit A to the Complaint includes copyright registration information for Works
4
27 Warnerby
owned the Plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief (Disney, Paramount,
Bros., Universal, and Columbia) that have been publicly performed on
28 Altered Carbon.
-11- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 B. Tusa Directly Infringes Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right of Public

Performance
2
Plaintiffs have the exclusive right, among others, “to perform the
3
[C]opyrighted [W]orks publicly.” 5 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). Streaming copyrighted
4
movies and television shows without authorization violates the public performance
5
right. See, e.g., Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431, 431 (2014)
6
(internet streaming constitutes public performance); VidAngel I, 224 F. Supp. 3d at
7
970–71 (streaming motion pictures from master copies “publicly perform[s]” those
8
works).6
9
Tusa infringes this right. Plaintiffs’ investigators have conducted website
10
traffic analyses that trace the infringing streams to Tusa’s domains. Van Voorn
11
Decl. ¶¶ 47–48. And Tusa has openly bragged on his social media accounts
12
(@krazinabox) about his “wire tracing” of cable boxes:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
5
A party performs a work publicly when it “transmit[s] or otherwise
20 communicate[s] a performance . . . of the work . . . to the public, by means of any
device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the
21 performance . . . receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same
time or at different times.” 17 U.S.C. § 101(2) (definition of “[t]o perform . . . a
22 work ‘publicly’”).
6
See also Nitro TV, 2020 WL 3124347, at *2 (“The internet streaming of full
23 copyrighted works without authorization constitutes a violation of this exclusive
right.”); TickBox, 2018 WL 1568698, at *9 (“Broadcasting copyrighted video
24 content to the public over the internet without authorization infringes upon the
25 BarryDriller Content Sys.,performance
copyright owner’s public right.”); Fox Television Stations, Inc. v.
PLC, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1151 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
26 (enjoining defendant streaming service from “retransmitting, streaming, or
otherwise publicly performing” plaintiffs’ copyrighted works); Warner Bros. Entm’t
27 Inc. v. WTV Sys., Inc. (Zediva), 824 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1006–07, 1010–11 (C.D. Cal.
2011) (holding service violated public performance right by streaming contents of
28 DVDs from DVD players purportedly assigned to individual users).
-12- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
id. ¶ 22, Ex. 9. 7 Further, Tusa has acknowledged that “[w]e source everything
14
ourselves.” Id. ¶ 21, Ex. 8. And an alias associated with the Altered Carbon
15
account on a private chat channel also explained that Altered Carbon is the source
16
for the streams:
17
just to let you know we are one of two main suppliers of all US
18 channels there are no others they just buy from us two. They are either
restreaming or reselling. We are the main directs for all US.
19
Tusa’s admissions that he is both the source of the infringing streams and the
20
party responsible for transmitting them to end users show he is directly liable for
21
violating Plaintiffs’ public performance right. 17 U.S.C. § 106(4); Am. Broad. Cos.,
22
573 U.S. at 443 (streaming copyrighted works over the internet to members of the
23
public violates the public performance right); see also Nat’l Football League v.
24
25
7
“Courts have consistently relied upon evidence of downloads by a plaintiff’s
26 investigator to establish both unauthorized copying and distribution of a plaintiff’s
work.”
27 1641978, at *8Records
Arista LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, No. 06 CV 5936 (KMW), 2011 WL
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011) (collecting cases); Arista Records LLC v.
28 Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124, 150 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Courts routinely
base findings of infringement on the actions of plaintiffs’ investigators.”).
-13- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS
1 PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 211 F.3d 10, 11 (2d Cir. 2000) (“a public performance
2 . . . includes ‘each step in the process by which a protected work wends its way to its
3 audience’” (citation omitted)).
4 II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT AN
INJUNCTION
5
6 The Altered Carbon service—like other online streaming services that courts
7 have analyzed—threatens the Plaintiffs’ business with irreparable harm. See, e.g.,
8 WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F. 3d 275, 285–87 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding extensive
9 irreparable harms caused by unlicensed internet retransmissions of live television
10 channels); BarryDriller, 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1147 (same); Nitro TV, 2020 WL
11 3124347, at *2 (finding Plaintiffs’ demonstrated irreparable harm for similar IPTV
12 service).
13 First, Tusa interferes with Plaintiffs’ basic right as copyright holders to
14 control “when, where, to whom, and for how much they will authorize transmission
15 of their Copyrighted Works to the public.” Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1012. Tusa
16 usurps Plaintiffs’ control over the exercise of their exclusive rights by interfering
17 with Plaintiffs’ distribution strategies. Perkins Decl. ¶¶ 11–15. For example, Tusa
18 offers more channels and content than are available on any legitimate service. Tusa
19 is currently offering nearly 2,600 live channels. No licensed could offer a channel
20 package of that size, let alone at the same price. Van Voorn Decl. ¶¶ 17–19.
21 Moreover, when Tusa streams programming, he is not subject to any of the
22 limitations that apply to licensed services. For example, legitimate services are
23 subject to geographic restrictions, which only permit them to provide their
24 subscribers with those channels and Works authorized for each subscriber’s
25 particular geographic area. By contrast, Tusa streams multiple channels owned and
26 operated by the ABC, CBS, CW, NBC, and FOX networks, sourced from multiple
27 affiliate stations across the U.S., to Altered Carbon subscribers, wherever they are
28 located. This is not hypothetical—Altered Carbon streams Disney’s recent release,
-14- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Cruella, when that title is currently available in the United States only in theaters
2 and for streaming exclusively on Disney+ (subscribers pay an additional fee for this
3 particular work). Id. ¶ 20, Ex. 7.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Licensed cable or satellite providers are not able to provide the offerings that
18 Tusa does. Tusa thus appropriates for himself an unlawful competitive advantage
19 over licensees who follow the law. Perkins Decl. ¶¶ 16–18. Courts have confirmed
20 repeatedly that services that operate “without the normal licensing restrictions . . .
21 interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to control the use and transmission of their
22 Copyrighted works, thereby, causing irreparable injury.” VidAngel I, 224 F. Supp.
23 3d at 975 (quoting Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1012–13); Nitro TV, 2020 WL
24 3124347, at *2 (“Not only is Defendant directly infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights,
25 creating a financial loss to Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the
26 unlawfully distributed Copyrighted Works may undermine the value of Plaintiffs'
27 legitimate licenses.”).
28
-15- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Second, Tusa’s infringing services undermine Plaintiffs’ existing

2 relationships and goodwill with legitimate online services in other ways, including
3 most notably, price. For example, Tusa’s offerings at $7–$10 per month
4 dramatically undercut the prices charged to consumers by legitimate services that
5 offer even less content availability. Perkins Decl. ¶ 19. This unfair competition
6 undermines Plaintiffs’ relationships and their goodwill with licensees: “If
7 Defendants can transmit Plaintiffs’ content without paying a fee, Plaintiffs’ existing
8 and prospective licensees will demand concessions to make up the loss of
9 viewership to non-paying alternatives.” BarryDriller, 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1147; see
10 also VidAngel I, 224 F. Supp. 3d at 975 (“Because VidAngel operates without any
11 license and performs Plaintiffs' works during negotiated exclusivity periods it
12 interferes with Plaintiffs’ exercise of their exclusive rights and frustrates Plaintiffs’
13 ability to negotiate for similar rights in the future.”); Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at
14 1012–13 (finding unlicensed streaming “jeopardize[d] the continued existence of
15 Plaintiffs’ licensees’ businesses” and harmed plaintiffs’ goodwill with its licensees).
16 Third, Tusa expands the market for infringing services, which causes further
17 harm to Plaintiffs. Tusa expands the market on the supply side, by luring affiliates
18 and resellers into the market with the promise of profits. Van Voorn Decl. ¶ 22–24.
19 Tusa also expands the market on the demand side, by misleading consumers to
20 believe they can obtain access to Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works at prices well below
21 those charged by licensed services, which of course pay license fees for the rights
22 they exercise. Perkins Decl. ¶ 25–28. Tusa thus harms legitimate services by
23 drawing users away from legitimate licensees that cannot compete with these too-
24 good-to-be-true prices. See Zediva, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1013 (defendants’ service
25 threatened “to create incorrect but lasting impressions with consumers about what
26 constitute[d] lawful video on demand exploitation” of copyrighted works); Nitro TV,
27 2020 WL 3124347, at *2 (unauthorized IPTV and VOD service threatens to cause
28
-16- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 “unquantifiable customer confusion and an overall diminution of value of the

2 Copyrighted Works”).
3 Fourth, Tusa, a recidivist infringer, undermines Plaintiffs’ anti-piracy efforts.
4 Plaintiffs regularly confront a number of infringing IPTV services. Perkins Decl.
5 ¶ 29–33. Many are in their nascent stages and have yet to experience substantial
6 growth. If the owners of these services will voluntarily stop their illegal offerings
7 and commit not to resume them, Plaintiffs do not have to incur the substantial
8 expense and burden of litigation to halt the illegal conduct. Id. ¶¶ 30–31. This
9 consensual-resolution path also conserves judicial resources. Id. Where, as here,
10 the infringer demonstrates she or he will not abide by their agreement but instead
11 will continue to infringe, Plaintiffs have no choice but to turn to the courts to
12 enforce their rights. Id.
13 Finally, money damages will not adequately compensate Plaintiffs for the loss
14 of control over the Copyrighted Works, the damage to their business goodwill, and
15 harm to the continued advancement of the legitimate distribution system for creative
16 works. Perkins Decl. ¶ 35; see TickBox, 2018 WL 1568698, at *13 (“[I]t is unlikely
17 that money damages could adequately compensate for difficult-to-quantify harms to
18 Plaintiffs’ business models and relationships” from unauthorized streaming.).
19 Money damages also are inadequate because there is no reasonable prospect
20 that Tusa will be able to satisfy an award in this case. The statutory damages for
21 each work infringed through his willful infringement may be as much as $150,000.
22 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Plaintiffs collectively own thousands of Copyrighted Works, a
23 substantial number of which have been infringed as the result of Tusa’s illegal
24 conduct with respect to Altered Carbon alone (setting aside the prior infringing
25 services for which he will also owe damages). Tusa therefore will be responsible
26 for a damages award far in excess of his ability to pay. See, e.g., BarryDriller, 915
27 F. Supp. 2d at 1147; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F.
28 Supp. 2d 1197, 1217 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“[A]n award of monetary damages will be
-17- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 meaningless, and the plaintiff will have no substantive relief, where it will be
2 impossible to collect an award for past and/or future infringements perpetrated by a
3 defendant.”).
4 The scope of foregoing harms caused by Tusa and those acting in concert
5 with him continues to grow, as the Altered Carbon’s network of affiliates and
6 resellers expands. Perkins Decl. ¶ 31. This is further reason that an injunction is
7 necessary to prevent the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs from Tusa’s illegal activity.
8 III. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIP FACTOR IS DECIDEDLY IN
PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR.
9
10 Before issuing a preliminary injunction, a court “must balance the competing
11 claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or
12 withholding of the requested relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (citation omitted).
13 The threat of harm to Plaintiffs is substantial. See Section II, supra. By
14 contrast, Tusa “cannot complain of the harm that will befall [him] when properly
15 forced to desist from [his] infringing activities.” Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express
16 Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1338 (9th Cir. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds, 17
17 U.S.C. § 117(c); see Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 830
18 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]here the only hardship that the defendant will suffer is lost
19 profits from an activity which has been shown likely to be infringing, such an
20 argument in defense merits little equitable consideration . . . .” (citations omitted));
21 Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 943, 950 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Since
22 [small start-up defendant] does not (and cannot) claim any legitimate hardships as a
23 result of being enjoined from committing unlawful activities, and Apple would
24 suffer irreparable and immeasurable harms if an injunction were not issued, this
25 factor weighs strongly in favor of Apple’s motion.”).
26 IV. AN INJUNCTION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
27 Enjoining Tusa serves the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
28
-18- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Upholding copyright protection is in the public interest. See Eldred v.

2 Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2002) (“[t]he economic philosophy behind the
3 [Copyright] [C]lause . . . is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by
4 personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of
5 authors and inventors” (citation omitted)); VidAngel II, 869 F.3d at 867 (“[T]he
6 public has a compelling interest in protecting copyright owners’ marketable rights to
7 their work and the economic incentive to continue creating television programming
8 and motion pictures.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Kelly v. Primco
9 Mgmt., Inc., No. CV-1407263 BRO (SHx), 2015 WL 10990368, at *16 (C.D. Cal.
10 Jan. 12, 2015) (“[I]t is virtually axiomatic that the public interest can only be served
11 by upholding copyright protections . . . .” (citation omitted)). By contrast, Tusa’s
12 “copyright infringement does not offer any lawful benefit to the public.” Nitro TV,
13 2020 WL 3124347, at *3.
14 ***
15 In sum, a preliminary injunction should issue because the Plaintiffs are likely
16 to succeed on the merits, they stand to suffer irreparable harm, the balance of
17 hardships between the parties supports the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and
18 such an injunction would be in the public interest.
19 RELIEF REQUESTED
20 A. Plaintiffs Request An Injunction That Protects Their Copyrights
21 Plaintiffs’ requested injunction has two parts: (1) prohibiting further
22 infringement, including streaming, copying, or otherwise exercising any of
23 Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights without authorization; and (2) temporarily freezing the
24 Altered Carbon Websites so they cannot be accessed or transferred during the
25 pendency of this action.
26 This injunction applies to Tusa, as well as those acting in concert with them,
27 including the resellers and affiliates that market and sell the illegal Altered Carbon
28 service. Plaintiffs have learned, through unfortunate experience, that infringers—
-19- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 confronted with a lawsuit seeking to stop their ongoing infringement—are likely to

2 transfer their operations to a close associate, such as a reseller, or to instruct their
3 domain registrar to transfer their domain name to another entity, not subject to the
4 jurisdiction of this Court, while they revive their infringing activities using new
5 servers and infrastructure. Courts ensure that the injunctive relief is sufficiently
6 broad to avoid this result. See Nitro TV, 2020 WL 3124347, at *3 (enjoining
7 Namecheap, Inc. and Domain.com LLC from “allowing the Infringing Domain
8 Names to be modified, sold, transferred to another owner, or deleted”); Showtime
9 Networks Inc. v. Doe, No. 2:15-CV-03147-GW-MRW, 2015 WL 12646501, at *2
10 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015) (temporary restraining order requiring all “hosts,
11 registrars and name servers” to “suspend all services with respect to Defendants’
12 Infringing Websites” to prevent specific illegal streaming).
13 B. No Bond Should Be Required
14 Plaintiffs request that the Court order that no bond is required. A security
15 bond is not required when entering a preliminary injunction. Diaz v. Brewer, 656
16 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court retains discretion ‘as to the
17 amount of security required, if any.’” (quoting Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067,
18 1086 (9th Cir. 2009))). Any hardship Tusa faces result from his voluntary, and
19 repeatedly misguided, decision to build a business around violating Plaintiffs’ rights.
20 Plaintiffs respectfully submit that no security should be required.
21 CONCLUSION
22 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant
23 the requested preliminary injunction.
24
25
26
27
28
-20- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 DATED: July 8, 2021 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

2
3
By: /s/ Rose Leda Ehler
4
ROSE LEDA EHLER
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS


Warner V Tusa Preliminary Inj Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Warner V Tusa Preliminary Inj Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS Document 13 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:90

1 KELLY KLAUS (SBN 161091)

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

1 This Motion is made on the following grounds as explained in the

-i- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

6 Amazon Content Servs., LLC v. Set Broad., LLC,

21 Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al .v TTKN Enterprises, LLC (Crystal Clear

26 Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,

-ii- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

21 Showtime Networks Inc. v. Doe,

-iii- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-iv- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

-1- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Enough is enough. Tusa’s repeated mass infringement of Plaintiffs’

-2- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 performance rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4), is indisputable.

-3- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-4- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-5- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 C. Altered Carbon Is Tusa’s Latest Infringing Streaming Service

-6- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-7- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-8- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-9- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-11- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 B. Tusa Directly Infringes Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Right of Public

-12- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-14- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-15- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Second, Tusa’s infringing services undermine Plaintiffs’ existing

-16- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 “unquantifiable customer confusion and an overall diminution of value of the

-17- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

-18- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 Upholding copyright protection is in the public interest. See Eldred v.

-19- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 confronted with a lawsuit seeking to stop their ongoing infringement—are likely to

-20- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

1 DATED: July 8, 2021 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

-21- Case No. 2:21-cv-05456-VAP-AS

You might also like