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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728potential direct Internet broadcasts through I-Channel, and Defendants’ failure toobtain licenses for consumers’ home recordings of works that the consumersreceive from sources other than Defendants. There is nothing in the least bitcontradictory about such a position.Sony established that consumers do not need any license for home timeshifting purposes under the doctrine of fair use. On the other hand, if Defendantsoperate I-Channels that directly transmit to consumers, Defendants wouldobviously need a license to do so because it is Defendants who would betransmitting the work, rather than the consumer recording at home. There isnothing in the least bit inconsistent about Defendants’ position. 74/Any transmissions by Defendants over the Internet could, no doubt, competewith Plaintiffs’ broadcast channels or productions. But Defendants’ new channelshave nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement by consumers’ homerecording. 75/Plaintiffs’ desire to know about plans and negotiations for theseservices, with resulting potential for intimidation of potential licensing partners forI-Channels, has absolutely no relevance to Plaintiffs’ claims. 76/The Court shouldnot assist Plaintiffs in such inappropriate endeavors to use this litigation forAlthough Defendants have, in response to Plaintiffs’ demands, directly statedthat they have no licenses for home recording (because Defendants’ contendconsumers do not need them), Plaintiffs themselves have refused to provide eventhe actual licenses with other PVR manufacturers (e.g., TiVo) in this area. SeeSecond Joint Stipulation at 102 regarding ReplayTV Request No. 64. It isremarkable that, while Plaintiffs refuse to provide this core discovery that wouldtest the bona fides of their claim that licenses are required, Plaintiffs seek to compelproduction of all documents “ relating to” Defendants’ internal licensing discussionsor plans for I-Channels, which are plainly not relevant to the home recording74/Plaintiffs challenge here.75/When pressed to explain the relevance of this demand, Plaintiffs stated in theMarch 6 telephonic conference that Plaintiffs needed to know about Defendants’plans for “ I Channel” and other “ plans” for DVRs. See 03/11/02 letter at 2.76/Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further identification of any licenses entered(Disney Interrogatory 17) or any person involved in licensing (Disney InterrogatoryNo. 19) is particularly frivolous in that Defendants have fully answered theinterrogatory. There are no such licenses.102