Paramount Pictures Corporation v. ReplayTV, Inc., Joint Stipulation ...

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728In response, Defendants have offered to provide Plaintiffs only with actual,executed license agreements -- of which they say there are none. Defendants haverefused to provide Plaintiffs with any information or documents about negotiationsto obtain such licenses or about Defendants’ plans to obtain such licenses.Defendants’ narrow proffer would leave Plaintiffs without powerful and importantevidence.The public record contains abundant indications that Defendants recognizethat distribution of TV programs and movies over the Internet is a marketplacebusiness in which the distributors must obtain permission from copyright owners ofthe works being distributed. See Christopher Stern, It May Finally Be ShowtimeFor DVRs, Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2002, at E1 (“ [SONICblue CEO Kenneth]Potashner believes that ultimately he will be able to work out a deal that benefitsboth sides. For example, ReplayTV could e-mail shows to viewers who pay a feefor each episode.” ); Phillip Swann, ReplayTV to Offer Video on Demand, TVPredictions, Feb. 8, 2002, at http://www.tvpredictions.com/newsfeature1. html(describing Defendant’ s plans to negotiate for permission to transmit TV shows andmovies to their customers). Through the requests at issue here, Plaintiffs seek toobtain the internal documents that reflect these important facts. If such documentsexist, they will help Plaintiffs to demonstrate the following potent self-contradictionby Defendants: on the one hand, Defendants admit that retransmission of TVshows and movies through the Internet for viewing at times chosen by the viewer isa business that requires the copyright owners’ permission. On the other hand,Defendants seek to sabotage that very business by making it easy for users toexchange precisely the same costly copyrighted works for free over the Internet.Under Ninth Circuit law, building such a system for uncontrolled private exchangeof plaintiffs’ copyrighted works is inherently harmful to copyright owners.Napster, 239 F.3d at 1017 (“ Having digital downloads available for free on the100