Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva

District Court, N.D. California·Decided August 29, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-04300·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 VIRAL DRM LLC, CASE NO.: 3:23-cv-04300 10 Plaintiffs, 11 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR 12 ENTRY OF TEMPORARY 13 YOUTUBE UPLOADERS LISTED ON RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER SCHEDULE A, RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 This matter came before the court on plaintiff VIRAL DRM LLC’s motion for a temporary 18 restraining order, and upon expiration of the temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction 19 against Defendants, and an order restraining transfer of assets, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 512(f), 20 1203, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and this court’s inherent 21 authority. 22 Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a temporary restraining order and an order restraining the 23 financial accounts used by defendants. As discussed below, Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements 24 for issuance of a temporary restraining order. 25 BACKGROUND 26 The following factual background is taken from Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF 1), the motion, 27 and supporting evidentiary submissions and exhibits. 28 1 Plaintiff, Viral DRM, LLC, is a syndicator of award-winning videographic content created by 2 talented videographers who travel around the globe in pursuit of Mother Nature’s wrath. Plaintiff’s 3 videographers and photographers cover weather extremes from tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, 4 blizzards, volcanoes and climate change impacts. 5 Defendants are foreign YouTube uploaders who operate popular and financially lucrative 6 YouTube channels. Defendants are physically located outside the United States living in countries 7 with lax copyright protection and weak legal regimes. Defendants downloaded copies of plaintiff’s 8 copyrighted videographic works from the internet and then uploaded plaintiff’s works to their 9 YouTube channels where they placed advertising on plaintiff’s videos to earn advertising revenue, 10 grow their YouTube channel subscriber base, and engage in other money-making business activities 11 using plaintiff’s copyrighted media content. 12 Plaintiff discovered the unauthorized use of its works by defendants. The works pirated by 13 defendants on YouTube are listed on Schedule A to the complaint. Upon discovering the defendants’ 14 unauthorized use, plaintiff submitted DMCA take-down notices to YouTube that are attached as 15 Exhibit 3 to the complaint. Defendants responded to plaintiff’s DMCA notices with false 16 counternotices attached as Exhibit 4 to the complaint. Defendants’ false counternotices claimed that 17 defendants owned the rights to the plaintiff’s works or asserted other false claims to lawful use in 18 bad faith. The statements defendants made in the counternotices were materially false and 19 defendants lacked a subjective good faith belief in the false statements contained therein when they 20 made the false statements. 21 The Copyright Act allows plaintiff to obtain an accounting and to recover, as an equitable 22 remedy, the actual damages suffered as result of the infringement and any additional profits of the 23 defendants that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the 24 actual damages. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), 512(f), 1203. This disgorgement remedy will be worthless 25 unless the funds defendants’ earned from advertising placed on their videos on their lucrative 26 YouTube channels are frozen. Plaintiff has good reason to believe these foreign defendants will hide 27 or transfer their ill-gotten advertising revenue beyond the jurisdiction of this Court unless the 28 payments made to them by Google and the funds in their accounts are restrained. 1 To preserve the disgorgement and accounting remedy, Plaintiff seeks an order restraining 2 defendants’ assets, including specifically (1) funds paid to or due in the future to the defendants for 3 YouTube advertising revenue within the control of YouTube and Google LLC, and (2) funds in the 4 possession of or transmitted through electronic funds transfer services, foreign banks and domestic 5 banks, payment service providers and money transfer services that defendants use to transfer funds 6 to themselves or others from their Google Adsense accounts.

7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 9 To obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must demonstrate “(1) that he is likely to 10 succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 11 relief, (3) that the balances of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public 12 interest.” Beaty v. Brewer, 649 F.3d 1071, 1072 (9th Cir. 2011) citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 13 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). 14 Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65 provides that: 15 The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the 16 adverse party of its attorney on if: 17 (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 18 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the 19 adverse party can be heard in opposition; and 20 (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and 21 the reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). 22 23 Ex parte temporary restraining orders “should be restricted to serving their underlying 24 purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to 25 hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 26 Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 27 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 Based on declarations submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court concludes that 3 Plaintiff has a strong probability of proving at trial that defendants have (1) infringed Plaintiff’s 4 copyrighted works, and that the infringement of the works will likely cause Plaintiff to suffer 5 immediate and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted; (2) that defendants 6 submitted false “put-back” or counternotices in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f); and (3) that 7 defendants have removed, altered and falsified CMI in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva (Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related