puerto 80 v. united states - appellant's unopposed emergency motion for expedited review

8/4/2019 Puerto 80 v. United States - Appellant's Unopposed Emergency Motion for Expedited Review

1/54

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUITThurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

Docket Number(s): Caption [use short title]

Motion for:

et forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:

MOVING PARTY: OPPOSING PARTY:

9 Plaintiff 9 Defendant

9 Appellant/Petitioner 9 Appellee/Respondent

MOVING ATTORNEY: OPPOSING ATTORNEY:

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:

lease check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND

INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:

Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? 9 Yes 9 N

9 Yes 9 No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? 9 Yes 9 N

Requested return date and explanation of emergency:

Opposing counsels position on motion:

9

Unopposed9

Opposed9

Dont KnowDoes opposing counsel intend to file a response:

9 Yes 9 No 9 Dont Know

s oral argument on motion requested? 9 Yes 9 No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has argumentdate of appeal been set? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, enter date:______________________________________________________

ignature of Moving Attorney:

__________________________________Date: ___________________ Has servicebeen effected? 9 Yes 9 No [Attach proof of service]

ORDER

T IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion is GRANTED DENIED.

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE OHAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court

Date: _____________________________________________ By: _____________________________________________

Form T-1080

11-3390-cv

Ex editedReview Puerto 80 Projects,S.L.U.v.UnitedStatesofAmerica

Petitioner-A ellantPuerto 80 Pro ects,S.L.U.

res ectfull submitsthisemer enc motiontoex edite

tsa ealoftheDistrictCourtsOrderden in Puerto

80s etitionfiled ursuantto18 U.S.C. 983(f .

Puerto 80 Pro ects S.L.U. UnitedStatesofAmerica etal.

Mark A. Lemley ChristopherDouglasFrey

Durie Tan ri LLP217 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco, CA 94111415-362-6666mlemle durietan ri.com

U.S. Attorne s Office, Southern District of New York

(212 637-2000 x2270OneSt.AndrewsPlaza,NewYork,NewYork10007

christo her.fre usdo . ov

U.S.D.C.SouthernDistrictofNewYork,Jud ePaulA.Crott ,USDJ

See attached motion.

/s/ Mark A. Lemle 08/26/2011

Case: 11-3390 Document: 16 Page: 1 08/26/2011 376655 54


2/54

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PUERTO 80 PROJECTS, S.L.U.,Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

United States of America andDepartment of Homeland Security,Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

Respondents.

Docket No. 11-3390-cv

APPELLANTS UNOPPOSED EMERGENCY

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

Petitioner-Appellant Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U. (Puerto 80 or Appellant)

respectfully submits this emergency motion to expedite its appeal of the District

Courts Order denying Puerto 80s petition filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(f)

(the Order).1

Appellant has satisfied the procedural requirements set forth in Local Rule

27.1(d). At the earliest possible opportunity, on August 25, 2011, Appellant

advised the Clerk of this Court and opposing counsel of its intent to file the instant

emergency motion to expedite its appeal. The government has consented to

expediting this appeal and to the following briefing schedule:

1A copy of the August 4, 2011 Order is attached to the Affidavit of Mark Lemley,

sworn to August 25, 2011 (Lemley Affidavit), as Exhibit A.



3/54

2

Appellees opposition brief to be filed sixty (60) days from the filing date of

Appellants opening papers;

Appellants reply brief to be filed twenty-one (21) days from the filing date

of Appellees opposition brief.

Appellant requests that oral argument be held on the appeal within forty-

five (45) days once briefing is completed.

In this motion, Appellant makes the required showing as to the nature of the

emergency and the harm that Appellant will suffer if the motion to expedite is not

granted. Specifically, as set forth in more detail below, the governments seizure

of Appellants domain names is an unlawful prior restraint on speech which causes

irreparable harm to Appellants users and readers First Amendment rights and the

public interest. The damage increases each day that passes while the seizure of the

domain names remains in effect. And delay in resolution of this appeal could

render it moot, denying Appellant any relief on a meritorious claim. Consequently,

expedited review of the Order denying Appellant relief is necessary to minimize

the extent of such harm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant Puerto 80 is a Sole Shareholder Limited Liability Company

incorporated under the laws of Spain with its principal place of business in

Arteixo, Spain. Puerto 80 owns the rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com domain



4/54

3

names (the subject domain names),2

which are registered with GoDaddy.com,

Inc., in Scottsdale, Arizona. Puerto 80 operates the Rojadirecta website under

the subject domain names. See Declaration of Igor Seoane Min in Support of

Petition for Release of Seized Property (Seoane Decl.) 2-3.3

The Rojadirecta

site is essentially an online discussion group that hosts forums in which users can

post messages concerning sports, politics, and other topics. It also provides a

forum in which users can discuss and post information about highlights from

various sporting events, and indexes links to streams of sporting events that can

already be found on the Internet. It does not host copyrighted videos or streams of

sporting events. Id. 4, 6. Following a multi-year legal battle, two Spanish courts

specifically held that the website was operating legally and did not infringe

copyrights. Id. 7.

The Rojadirecta site has been listed among the 100 most popular sites in

Spain in terms of traffic. Id. 8. Prior to the seizure, the site had approximately

865,000 registered users from around the world, including the United States, many

of whom use their accounts to engage in discussions of sports, politics, and a

variety of other subjects on Rojadirecta discussion boards. Id. 12.

2A domain name is a unique string of characters or numbers that typically is used

to designate and permit access to an Internet website. Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293, 295 (2d Cir. 2002).3

The Declaration of Igor Seoane Min, which was submitted to the DistrictCourt, is attached to the Lemley Affidavit as Exhibit B.



5/54

4

On January 31, 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security (ICE) seized the subject domain names which

pointed to the Rojadirecta website. The domain names were seized pursuant to

warrants issued in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and

were based on an ICE agents assertion that probable cause existed to believe that

the domain names were being used to commit criminal violations of copyright law.

The government did not at that time file either a civil forfeiture complaint or a

criminal complaint alleging the violation of any law.

Counsel for Puerto 80 repeatedly tried to discuss the seizure with ICE agents

and the Department of Justice, but was unable to engage with the government until

it notified the U.S. Attorneys Office of its intent to seek a temporary restraining

order and file a petition for immediate return of the seized domain names.4

It was

not until then that Puerto 80 was able to have a substantive conversation with the

appropriate officials. Hoping to avoid burdening the court, Puerto 80 held off

filing the petition now being appealed, pending the outcome of those negotiations.

On May 26, 2011, the government informed counsel for Puerto 80 that the only

4Puerto 80s experience appears typical of other website operators whose domain

names have been seized by the government, see Mike Masnick, Why We HaventSeen Any Lawsuits Filed Against The Government Over Domain Seizures: Justice

Department, TECHDIRT, May 24, 2011, available athttp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/15125114374/why-we-havent-seen-any-lawsuits-filed-against-government-over-domain-seizures-justice-department-stalling.shtml.



6/54

5

acceptable compromise would entail Puerto 80 prohibiting its users from linking

to any U.S. content anywhere on its sites. Because this solution would prohibit

Puerto 80 from engaging in lawful acts not prohibited by copyright law, Puerto 80

chose instead to challenge the seizure in court.

On June 13, 2011, Puerto 80 filed a petition in the District Court pursuant to

18 U.S.C. 983(f) seeking the immediate return of the seized domain names.

Among the grounds for its petition were that the Rojadirecta site is not violating

copyright law, let alone criminal copyright law, and that Puerto 80 will continue to

suffer substantial hardshipa reduction in traffic to the Rojadirecta site and

inability of many of its users to access their accounts, and a deprivation of First

Amendment rightsif the domain names are not immediately returned to Puerto

80. Only after Puerto 80 filed its petition did the government finally bring a civil

forfeiture claim directed at the domain names.

After briefing (including an amicus brief filed by the Electronic Frontier

Foundation as to the First Amendment issues) and oral argument, the Court denied

Puerto 80s petition on the sole ground that Puerto 80 was unable to make a

sufficient showing of substantial hardship. Notably, the Court did not conclude

that the domain names were being used to violate any law.

In denying Puerto 80s petition, the District Court rejected Puerto 80s First

Amendment concerns on the following grounds:



7/54

6

Puerto 80s First Amendment argument fails at this juncture as well.

Puerto 80 alleges that, in seizing the domain names, the Government

has suppressed the content in the forums on its websites, which may

be accessed by clicking a link in the upper left of the home page. (Pl.

Mem. 10.) The main purpose of the Rojadirecta websites, however, is

to catalog links to the copyrighted athletic events - any argument to

the contrary is clearly disingenuous. Although some discussion may

take place in the forums, the fact that visitors must now go to other

websites to partake in the same discussions is clearly not the kind of

substantial hardship that Congress intended to ameliorate in enacting

983. See 145 Cong. Rec. H4854-02 (daily ed. June 24, 1999)

(statement of Rep. Hyde) (Individuals lives and livelihoods should

not be in peril during the course of a legal challenge to a seizure.).

Puerto 80 may certainly argue this First Amendment issue in its

upcoming motion to dismiss, but the First Amendment considerationsdiscussed here certainly do not establish the kind of substantial

hardship required to prevail on this petition.

Lemley Affidavit, Ex. A, August 4, 2011 Order at 4.

APPELLANTS NEED FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

Puerto 80s appeal should be expedited because the governments seizure of

the subject domain names violates the Constitutional rights to Puerto 80s users

and readers. 28 U.S.C. 1657(a) provides that the fact that a Constitutional right

is at stake shall constitute good cause to expedite an appeal if the factual context

shows that the claim has merit. That is true here.

The basis of Puerto 80s brief on appeal will be that governments seizure of

the subject domain names constitutes an unlawful prior restraint on speech and

suppresses Puerto 80s users and readers protected First Amendment activities.

See Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 63 (1989) ([W]hile the



8/54

7

general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that any and all contraband,

instrumentalities, and evidence of crimes may be seized on probable cause . . . ., it

is otherwise when materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are

involved.). See also Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468 (1985)(The First

Amendment imposes special constraints on searches for and seizures of

presumptively protected material, and requires that the Fourth Amendment be

applied with scrupulous exactitude in such circumstances.) (internal citation

omitted);Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326 n.5 (1979) (noting that

the First Amendment imposes special constraints on searches for, and seizures of,

presumptively protected materials).

Registered users of Rojadirecta cannot access their accounts or participate in

forum discussions as a result of the seizure. Nor can they post or follow links to

other web sites. This speech restriction extends not just to registered users of

Rojadirecta, but also to anyone wishing to visit the website. See, e.g., Va. State Bd.

of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976)

([T]he protection afforded is to the communication, to its source and to its

recipients both.);Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969) (It is

the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral,

and other ideas and experiences . . . . That right may not constitutionally be

abridged . . . .).



9/54

8

In Fort Wayne, state and local officials (respondents) filed a civil action

pursuant to Indianas RICO laws, alleging that the defendant bookstores had

engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by repeatedly violating Indianas

obscenity laws. 489 U.S. at 50-51. Prior to trial, respondents petitioned for, and

the trial court granted, immediate seizure of the bookstores pursuant to a state law

that permitted courts to issue seizure orders upon a showing of probable cause to

believe that a violation of [the States RICO law] involving the property in

question has occurred. Id. at 51. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the

pretrial seizure order was unconstitutional, stating that mere probable cause to

believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films

from circulation. Id. at 66. As in Fort Wayne, the government here has seized an

entire business and effectively suppressed all of the expressive content hosted on it,

including political discussions, commentary, and criticism by the sites users

without it being determined whether the seizure was actually warranted under

the relevant statutes. Id. at 67.

The prior restraint on Puerto 80 users and readers First Amendment rights

constitutes irreparable harm of the highest order. The Supreme Court has held that

[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,

unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373

(1976); see also Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 693 (2d Cir. 1996)



10/54

9

(Violations of First Amendment rights are commonly considered irreparable

injuries for the purposes of a preliminary injunction.). In CBS, Inc. v. Davis, the

Supreme Court stayed the lower court injunction that prohibited CBS from

broadcasting video footage documenting unsanitary practices in the meat industry,

finding that such prior restraint caused irreparable harm to the news media that is

intolerable under the First Amendment. 510 U.S. 1315, 1315-16, 1318 (1994)

(emphasis added). The deprivation of Constitutional rights is, therefore, ipso facto

irreparable injury and subject to expedited review.

In the instant case, the government effectively shut down an entire website,

suppressing all of the speech hosted on it, based on an assertion that there was

probable cause to believe that some of the material linked to by the website (though

not found on the website itself) might be infringing. Puerto 80 was not provided

any advance notice, nor was it provided the opportunity to contest the seizure

before (or, for that matter, shortly after) the government shut down the site. Nor

were the sites users afforded any notice or opportunity to contest the seizure. That

procedural failing itself indicates that the governments action was an unlawful

prior restraint. [T]he lack of notice or opportunity to be heard normally renders a

prior restraint invalid. United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304, 312 (2d Cir.

2005) (citing Carroll v. President & Comm'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 180

(1968)).



11/54

10

The special vice of a prior restraint is that it stifles speech in advance of any

finding as to whether or not that speech is legal. In this case, expedited review is

necessary because without it the appeal may well be overtaken by events. Puerto

80 is vigorously contesting the seizure of its domain names on the merits, and is

confident that it will eventually prevail. But for this Court to wait so long in

deciding this appeal that the underlying merits are already determined would defeat

the purpose of the rule against prior restraints. The restraint pre-trial is itself the

evil against which the First Amendment guards; the only way to prevent that evil

in this case is to order the return of the Rojadirecta domain names pending the

ultimate resolution of the forfeiture proceeding.5

5Because the government seized the domain name without any sort of notice or

opportunity to be heard by Puerto 80, the normal process by which Puerto 80 couldobtain immediate reliefa stay of the court order authorizing the seizureis notavailable. Simply put, there was never any court order authorizing this seizure; thegovernment simply seized the web sites without normal judicial process.



12/54

11

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully requested that Appellants

emergency motion for expedited review be granted.

Dated: Au ust 26 2011 B :

Respectfully submitted,

DURIE TANGRI LLP

/s/ Mark A. LemleMark A. Lemley

Mark A. LemleyRagesh K. Tangri (Admissionpending)Johanna Calabria (Admission

pending)Genevieve P. Rosloff (Admission

pending)217 Leidesdorff StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111Tel. (415) 362-6666

Attorneys for Petitioner-AppellantPUERTO 80 PROJECTS S.L.U.



13/54

1


FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PUERTO 80 PROJECTS, S.L.U.,Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

United States of America andDepartment of Homeland Security,Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

Respondents.

Docket No. 11-3390-cv

AFFIDAVIT OF MARK A. LEMLEY

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS UNOPPOSED

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

I, Mark A. Lemley, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner with the law firm of Durie Tangri LLP, counsel forPlaintiff-Appellant Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U.

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the August 4,2011 District Courts Order denying Puerto 80s petition filed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 983(f), filed as ECF No. 23 in the lower court docket.

///

///

///

///



14/54

2

3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the Declarationof Igor Seoane Min in Support of Petition for Release of Seized Property, which

was filed with the District Court on June 13, 2011 as ECF No. 2.

SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST,

2011.

/s/ Mark A. Lemle

Mark A. LemleyDURIE TANGRI LLP217 Leidesdorff StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111Tel. (415) 362-6666

Attorneys for Petitioner-AppellantPUERTO 80 PROJECTS S.L.U.



15/54

EXHIBIT A



16/54


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------------------------------------X

PUERTO 80 PROJECTS, S.L.U., :

:

Petitioner, ::

- against - : 11 Civ. 3983 (PAC):

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND, : This Order also pertains to:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, : 11 Civ. 4139 (PAC)IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS :

ENFORCEMENT, :

: ORDER

Respondents. :------------------------------------------------------------------X

HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:

On or about February 1, 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents

enforced a warrant signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas authorizing the seizure of two

domain names: Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org (the domain names). In signing the

warrant, Magistrate Judge Maas found probable cause to believe that the domain names were

subject to forfeiture because they had been used to commit criminal violations of copyright law.

On June 13, 2011, Plaintiff Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U. (Puerto 80) filed the instant petition for

the release of the domain names pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 983(f). On June 17, 2011, the

Government filed its Verified Complaint. On August 2, 2011, the Court conducted a conference

and heard oral argument on the instant petition. The Court also set a briefing schedule for Puerto

80s motion to dismiss the Verified Complaint.

For the following reasons, Puerto 80s petition for release of the domain names under

983 is DENIED.

USDC SDNY

DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDDOC #: _________________

DATE FILED: August 4, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-03983-PAC Document 23 Filed 08/04/11 Page 1 of 5Case: 11-3390 Document: 16 Page: 16 08/26/2011 376655 54


17/54

2

LEGAL STANDARD

Under 18 U.S.C. 983(f)(1), an individual whose property has been seized is entitled to

immediate release of the seized property where:

(A) the claimant has a possessory interest in the property;

(B) the claimant has sufficient ties to the community to provide assurance that the

property will be available at the time of trial;

(C) the continued possession by the Government pending the final disposition of

forfeiture proceedings will cause substantial hardship to the claimant, such as

preventing the functioning of the business, preventing an individual from working, orleaving an individual homeless;

(D) the claimants likely hardship from the continued possession by the Government ofthe seized property outweighs the risk that the property will be destroyed, damaged,

lost, concealed, or transferred if it is returned to the claimant during the pendency of

the proceeding; and

(E) none of the conditions set forth in paragraph (8) applies.

Under 983(f)(8):

This subsection shall not apply if the seized property

(A) is contraband, currency or other monetary instrument, or electronic funds unless such

currency or other monetary instrument or electronic funds constitutes the assets of a

legitimate business which has been seized;

(B) is to be used as evidence of a violation of the law;

(C) by reason of design or other characteristic, is particularly suited for use in illegalactivities; or

(D) is likely to be used to commit additional criminal acts if returned to the claimant.

DISCUSSION

Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org were websites that collected and organized links to

third-party websites which directed visitors to live athletic events and other pay-per-view



18/54

3

presentations which were subject to copyright law. (Govt Mem. 4.) The websites displayed three

categories of links including Today on Internet TV, Download last full matches, and Last

video highlights. (Id.) The website also contained several other links, including one labeled

Forums. (Id.)

The Government argues that the domain names should not be released because (i) Puerto

80 has failed to demonstrate a substantial hardship under 983(f)(1)(C); and (ii) because, under

983(f)(8)(D), the domain names would afford Puerto 80 the ability to commit additional criminal

acts. The Government does not discuss the other elements of 983(f)(1), and so the Court

assumes that the Government agrees that Puerto 80 meets these criteria.

I. Substantial Hardship Under 938(f)(1)(C)

Puerto 80 argues that if the Government does not immediately release the domain names,

Puerto 80 will be caused substantial hardship, including but not limited to, depriving it of lawful

business in the United States and throughout a substantial part of the world. (Pl. Mem. 9.) In

addition, continued seizure of the domain names infringes on Puerto 80s users and readers

First Amendment rights, thus imposing further hardship. (Id.) In support of their substantial

hardship assertion, Puerto 80 notes that Rojadirecta has experienced a 32% reduction in traffic

since the seizure and that continued seizure will cause further erosion of goodwill and reduction

in visitors. (Id.)

As the Government points out (and as Puerto 80 admits), however, Puerto 80 has, since

the seizure, transferred its website to alternative domains which are beyond the jurisdiction of the

Government, including www.rojadirecta.me, www.rojadirecta.es, and www.rojadirecta.in.

(Govt Mem. 11, Pl. Mem. 10 n.5.) The United States Government cannot seize these foreign

domain names, but United States residents can access them without restriction. Rojadirecta



19/54

4

argues that, because there is no way to communicate the availability of these alternative sites on

the .org or .com domains . . . the vast majority of users will simply stop visiting the sites

altogether. (Pl. Mem. 10 n.5.) This argument is unfounded Rojadirecta has a large internet

presence and can simply distribute information about the seizure and its new domain names to its

customers. In addition, Puerto 80 does not explain how it generates profit or argue that it is

losing a significant amount of revenue as a result of the seizure. Specifically, Puerto 80 states

that it does not generate revenue from the content to which it links, and it does not claim to

generate revenue from advertising displayed while such content is playing. (Seoane Decl. 5,

10.) Accordingly, the claimed reduction in visitor traffic does not establish a substantial hardship

for the purposes of 983(f)(1)(C).

Puerto 80s First Amendment argument fails at this juncture as well. Puerto 80 alleges

that, in seizing the domain names, the Government has suppressed the content in the forums on

its websites, which may be accessed by clicking a link in the upper left of the home page. (Pl.

Mem. 10.) The main purpose of the Rojadirecta websites, however, is to catalog links to the

copyrighted athletic events any argument to the contrary is clearly disingenuous. Although

some discussion may take place in the forums, the fact that visitors must now go to other

websites to partake in the same discussions is clearly not the kind of substantial hardship that

Congress intended to ameliorate in enacting 983. See 145 Cong. Rec. H4854-02 (daily ed. June

24, 1999) (statement of Rep. Hyde) (Individuals lives and livelihoods should not be in peril

during the course of a legal challenge to a seizure.). Puerto 80 may certainly argue this First

Amendment issue in its upcoming motion to dismiss, but the First Amendment considerations

discussed here certainly do not establish the kind of substantial hardship required to prevail on

this petition.



20/54

Case 1:11-cv-03983-PAC Document 23 Filed 08/04/11 Page 5 of 5

Accordingy, it is cer that Purto 80 does not satisfy the substantia hardhip

requiremt of 983((1C. Indeed he seize cerany does not revent[] the nctioning

o e business prevt[] individua om working [] ea[ela individua homess" o

ceate y other simar substatia hdship. 18 USC 983()C); see td States v

$6,786 in US. Currency No 06-cv 209 2007 \ 496747 at *2 .D. Ga Feb 132007 AsPueto 80 has faied to demonstrate hdship the baancing test discussed in 983(((D does

not appy

II. Additional Crmial Acts Uder 983(1(8)(D)

A discussion regding wheher Puero 80 woud use the domain nmes to commit

addiona crmna acts if the Cour grted Pueo 80's petition woud nessitate the Cous

consideration of whether Puero 80 hs comitted crimina acts in the rst instace. Given the

Cos resoution of the substantia hship issue above the Cout wi defer consideration of

this uestion unti it considers Puero 80s motion to dismiss which is schdued to be y

brefed on Sptember 2 2011 Pueo 80 wi have anoth chnce to test the vaidity of the

seize at that tme

CONCLUSION

or he foregoing reasons Puero 80s petiton is DEND The Cerk of Cour is

directed to cose nd enter judgment in case number 1 Civ 3983

Dat: New Yor New YorAugust 2011

5

IPAL A CROTTYnited States Distrct Judge



21/54

EXHIBIT B



22/54

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 33

.RJiXEGROm '1 . ~ 0 8 3 1 CIV vu IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKPUERTO 80 PROJECTS, S.L.U.,

Plaintiff,v.

United States of America andDepartment ofHomeland Security,Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Defendants.

Civil Action No.

DECLARATION OF IGOR SEOANE ~ A N IN SUPPORT OF PUERTO80'S PETITION FOR RELEASE OF SEIZED PROPERTY



23/54


I, Igor Seoane MUlan, declare as follows:1. I am the CEO ofPuerto 80 Projects, S.L.U. ("Puerto 80''), a limited liability

corporation organized under the laws of Spain. I submit this declaration in supportofPuerto80's Petition for Release of Seized Property and other relief. The following are matters of mypersonal knowledge, except where otherwise noted, and I could and would testify competentlythereto if called upon to do so.

2. Puerto 80 has a possessory interest in rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com(the "subject domain names"), as it is the lawful owner of he subject domain names and operatesthe "Rojadirecta" site under these domain names.

3. The subject domain names were registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc., which is aUnited States company located in Scottsdale, Arizona. As Daniel Brazier notes in his Affidavit inSupport of he Application of a Seizure Warrant ("Brazier Affidavit"), the registry for all ".com"top-level domains is Verisign, Inc., 487 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California94043. The registry for all ".org" top-level domains is The Public Interest Registry, 1775 WiehleAvenue, Suite 200, Reston, Virginia 20190. The ".org" domain is administered by Afilias USA,Inc., Building 3, Suite lOS, 300 Welsh Road Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044. The subject domainnames will remain under the control of he registries and registrars at all times.

4. As set forth in the Brazier Affidavit, the Rojadirecta sites do not themselves hostunauthorized copies of he sporting events that Mr. Brazier describes. See Paras. 13, 40(a),40(c). Rather, that content is hosted andlor streamed by third parties and it is never hosted orstreamed atlby Rojadirecta. The Rojadirecta sites merely contain links to those sites.

5. The advertisements described at para. 40(c) of he Brazier Affidavit are not run byRojadirecta and Rojadirecta does not receive revenue from those advertisements.



24/54


6. In addition to providing an index of links to material already existing on theInternet, the Rojadirecta sites provide forums in which users can discuss sports, politics, and anyother topic. Among these is a "highlights" forum in which users discuss sports highlights andlink to clips ofhighlights from various sporting events.

7. The activity on the Rojadirecta site has been expressly held to be lawful by theSpanish judiciary. Following allegations ofcopyright infiingement, the Criminal Court ofFirstInstance ruled in 2009 that the Rojadirecta sites did not violate any copyright laws. One yearlater. in an appeal of hat decision. the Madrid Provincial Court, First District, affirmed thelower court's ruling and held that "the reported actions do not constitute a crime, and the [lowercourt's] decision to dismiss the action is in accordance with law." A true and correct copy ofthose decisions, along with English translations, are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-2.

B. The continued possession by the government pending the final disposition offorfeiture proceedings will prevent the functioning of he Rojadirecta site under the subjectdomain names in the United States and throughout a substantial part of he world. thus causingPuerto 80 substantial hardship. The site which operates under the subject domain names was(prior to the government's seizure) listed among the 100 most popular sites in Spain in terms oftraffic according to Alexa Internet, a subsidiary ofAmazon that provides, among other things,traffic metrics.

9. Rojadirecta has users and visitors worldwide, including from the United States.10. Puerto 80 does not receive any revenue that is derived from specific content

hosted on, or streamed by, the sites to which it links. In other words, Puerto 80 does not receiveany revenue whatsoever from any site to which a user can link from the subject domain namesbased upon the content of he web links to that site. To the extent there is any site that a user can

2



25/54


link to from Rojadirccta which contains any infringing material, Puerto 80 receives no benefitfrom a user viewing such content on that site.

11. The seizure of he subject domain names is depriving Puerto 80 of awfulbusiness. Further, this is a matter of considerable urgency, because Internet users who cannotaccess the Rojadirecta site for a sustained period oftime will eventually stop trying. As a result,the possibility ofgetting the subject domain names back months or even days from now wilJnot solve the problem. With each day that passes, we continue to face the risk that we will loseour ability to conduct our business altogether because users will stop attempting to visit our site,or will use the websites of our competitors. Since the date of he seizure, we have experiencedapproximately a 32% reduction in traffic in terms ofvisits to the Rojadirecta site.

12. The continued possession by the government of he subject domain names causesimmediate hardship in another respect. Rojadirecta has almost 865,000 registered users, manyofwhom use their accounts to engage in discussions of sports, politics, and a variety of othersubjects on Rojadirecta discussion boards. Because of he government's seizure of he subjectdomain names, those registered users are now unable to access their accounts from the subjectdomain names. and many or most are substantially impeded from accessing their existingaccounts and the information they have stored on those accounts.

13. As explained above, the subject domain names will remain under the control ofthe U.S.-based registries and registrars at all times. Thus. there is no risk that the domain nameswill be destroyed. damaged, lost, concealed. or transferred if hey are returned to Puerto 80during the pendency of his proceeding.

14. I do not have any intent to use the subject domain names to commit criminal acts.15. The first time I learned that the subject domain names had been seized by the U.S.

3



26/54


government was when 1visited rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com on February 1,2011, anddiscovered that the U.S. government had made the site's content inaccessible via those domainnames name and pointed the domain names to another web page stating that the domain had beenseized by ICE.

16. I have not received any notice from the U.S. government that forfeitureproceedings have been instituted against the subject domain names.

1declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of he United States ofAmerica that theforegoing is true and correct. Executed on this 1j day of June 2011 in ACoauNA . Spain.

~ M ~ M

4



27/54


EXHIBIT 1



28/54


TRANSLAT ION STATEMENT

To whom it may concern:I, Lisa Grayson, do hereby swear and certify the following:1. That I am certified by the American Translators Association (ATA)for translation from Spanish into English, and that my ATA membership is in good standing;2. That the following page is a valid copy of my ATA credentialcertificate, altered only to prevent duplication;3. That the attach ed English-language document is my translation ofth e fax cover sheet and court verdict that I received from DurieTangri LLP, a copy of which is attached after the English translation;4. That, to the best of my knowledge, the English document is anaccurate and faithful translation of the document I received fromDurie Tangri LLP.

Lisa GraysonATA Member No. 224476

LISA GRAYSON 2502 W. Eastwood Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60625 (773) 463-8128

February 10 , 2011

e-mail: [email protected]



29/54

(pooc. :s 7"'6

THE A M E R I C A ! ~ TRANSLATORS ASSOCIAnONFounded in 1959Having S".J.ccessfully completed the examination required by the Comn:Ultee on Accreditation.Copy invalid u txs a c w m ~ n i e d by: original lettersigned by Lisa ~ ~ , p . . urayson

a Member in good standing of the Association, subscribing to its Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices, is granted thisCopy invalid ~ f W A ~ ~ ~ i p ~ ~ r s i f 6 r t d ~ 1 ~ t l 8 P r f r o m Spanish into English

Issued under the seal of the Association tills June 27, 2001@ 1 , t _ d . ! ~ c f . ! a - w . ~

Shuckran KamalChair, ATA Accreditation Committccess accompanied by original letterayson ~ ' ( / / f , , ~.t . ~ ~ I : , ) . ~ ~

TIus ct:rtificate is v.ilid only in combination with membcrslup in good st'U1ding in the Anlcncan Tmnslators Association.

u r " ' l th



30/54


RAMON BLANCO BLANCOCourtAttorneyMadrid Capital JudicialDistrict

Tax I.D. No.: 51.667.890-T

(address:) CjMequinenza No.9 = 1st FloorMadrid 28022, SpainTelephone and fax: 91.320.93.56Mobile: [email protected]

FAX TRANSMISSIONADDRESSEE:FAX NUMBER:DATE:

Mr. JAVIER MAESTRE RODRIGUEZ (Attorney at Law)91.222.67.95May 7, 2010SUBJECT: Summary proceedingsCOURT: No. 37COURT RECORD NO. 2517/07 roll 51/2010CLIENT: Mr. Igor Seoane Milian

MESSAGEDear colleague:I am sending you the attached decree, issued today.Please accept my bestwishes.(signature)No. of pages including attachment: 8



31/54


Rol l number 51/2010Prev ious proceed ings number 2517/2008Madrid P r e - t r i a l I n v e s t i g a ti o n c o u r t number 37

MADRXD PROVXBCXAL COURTFXRST DXVXSXOB

The HonorablePres iden t :

(rubber stamp)Honorable Assembly ofCourt Attorneys of MadridReceived NotificationMAY 6, 2010 MAY 7, 2010Article 151.2 L.E.C. 1/2000

Mr. Alejandro Maria Beni to L6pezMagis t r a t es :

Ms. Arace l i Pe rd ices L6pezMr. Eduardo de Porres Ort iz de Urbina

DECREE Bo. 364/10

In Madrid, on A p r i l twen ty - seven th , two thousand te n

BACKGROUND

FXRST - On Ju ly 15, 2009, th e Honorable Magist ra te Judge o fMadrid P r e - t r i a l Inves t iga t ion Cour t number 37 i s sued a decree inwhich the p rov is iona l d i smissa l of ac t ion and the" f i l e of theseproceedings was agreed to . Th e p a r t i e s having been no t i f i ed , th el e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f AUDIOVISUAL SPORT S.L. f i l ed an appea l ,which has been t r ans f e r r ed t o th e Publ ic Prosecu to r ' s Off ice ando th e r p a r t i e s who have requested r e j ec t ion o f th e appeal .

SECORD - Timely r epor t s of the l e g a l proceed ings hav ing beenf i l e d i n t h i s Cour t fo r the re so lu t io n o f the appea l ,



32/54


the date of Apri l 8, 2010, has been indicated for thedel ibera t ion , voting, and verd ic t , appointing Mr. Eduardo dePorres Ortiz de Urbina to express the Court 's opinion.

FUNDAMENTALS OF LAWFl:RST- The presen t proceedings inves t iga te the Web pagewww.rojadirecta.com. a page t ha t i s based on " l inks" t ha t allowfor the download, through "door-to-door" exchange programs, ofarchives or f i l e s of diverse content between d i f fe ren t users orgues ts , spec i f i ca l ly , foo tba l l 1 games from other countr ies andwhose r igh ts for usage in Spain belong to the complainant,Audioviosual ( s ic ) Sport S.L.

The par t i cu la r charge i s made with the understanding tha t therei s an ac t of publ ic communication o f works protected by theIn te l l ec tua l property Law wi hout author iza t ion from therespec t ive owners.

It i s cur ren t ly a genera l ly accepted cr i t e r ion t ha t the ac t ofdownloading f i l e s from the In ternet does not const i tu te a crime.It suf f ices to c i te the cr i t e r ion from Circular 1/2006 from theState General Prosecutor ' s Office to show the relevance of t h i sfactor . The above-mentioned Circular confirms the following:

In regard to determining t he t ype o f conduct o fsomeone who gathers protected works through a serveron a Web s i t e , without the authorizat ion o f the ownero f the r igh t s o f use, it can be inc luded ???? in theassumptions o f unauthorized communication, but in th i scase, if no considerat ion i s given for it, the typ ica lelement o f p r o f i t does not coex is t , th i s conduct canbe l ega l l y pursued only as an illicit c i v i l act ion . In

1 This presumably means European footba ll, i.e., soccer.



33/54


regard ~ h e user who Hdownloads o r rece ives H a worknfrom ~ h e I n ~ e r n e ~ H w i ~ h o u ~ [ f i nanc ia l ] c o n s i d e r a ~ i o n as a resu l o f an a c ~ o f u n a u ~ h o r i z e d c o m m u n i c a ~ i o n made by a n o ~ h e r person, making a p r i v a ~ e copy o f ~ h e work ~ h a ~ c a n n o ~ be cons idered c o n d u c ~ o f a c r im ina ln a ~ u r e . In regard ~ o [ ~ y p o ; l e ~ ~ e r s o r word miss ing]~ h e respons ib i l i o f ~ h e company' s i n f o r m a ~ i o n serv ice prov iders , ~ h e y will n o ~ be respons ib le when~ h e serv ice ~ h e y o f f e r i s one o f simplei n ~ e r m e d i a ~ i o n , w i ~ h i n ~ h e ~ e r m s e s ~ a b l i s h e d inA r ~ i c l e s 14 18 o f Law 34.2002, d a ~ e d Ju ly 11[2002] , o f serv ices o f the i n f o r m a ~ i o n o r e l e c ~ r o n i c commerce company.

Notwiths tanding th e foregoing, i n t h i s proceeding what has beeninves t iga ted and quest ioned i s no t the ac t iv i ty o f the personswho are pa r t of the f i l e exchange network, bu t ra ther theac t iv i ty of those r espons ib le fo r the Web page t h a t provides t h i sserv ice , and who a lso gain an economic advantage from t he i rac t iv i ty no matter how i nd i rec t it may be, since the charge i sno t paid , only the pub l ic i ty of the i n s e r t on the page i t s e l f ,which i s seen independent of what i s produced o r not downloaded.Those responsible fo r th e Web page do no t di rect ly commit ac t s o fpubl ic communication o f works protec ted by the LP I [ In t e l l ec tua lProper ty Law], s ince the downloaded i tems a re not loca ted int h e i r f i l e s . They only encourage t h i s behavior by the means inwhich they s e l ec t , make ava i lab le , and inform about how to accessthe pages t h a t of f e r the games' r e t r ansmiss ion .

Far from contempt ible i s the pos i t ion of those who maintain t h a tif th e i nves t iga t ive a c t iv i y i s advantageous together with andas a funct ion of the f ina l r e s u l t , the web pages such as the oneunder inves t iga t ion could be publ ic ly of fe r ing protec ted worksand performing those necessary ac ts of support so t h a t In te rne t



34/54


user s can communicate and use th i s publ ic offer ing of the work.Their l abor , from th i s perspect ive, would not be t h a t of mereintermediat ion but the hea r t of ac t iv i ty tha t advert ises andmakes poss ib le the massive exchange of f i l e s for the users who,without t h i s publ ic i ty and organiza t ion , could not do it or coulddo it in a s ign i f i can t ly more l imited way. The work of makingavai lab le and offer ing publ ic works cons t i tu tes an unauthorizedac t of publ ic communication more because t echnica l ly it i s theuser and not the provider who in fac t puts the f i l e a t publ icdisposa l . The provider adver t i ses and of fe r s the pro tec ted workto the user s in a publ ic way, an d in some cases f a c i l i t a t e s thetechnica l means so t h a t the user s can connect among themselvesand make the download. Such a pos i t ion could have support inAr t ic le 20 of the LPI, in which the concept of "publ iccommunication" in open form i s defined, inasmuch as t ha t preceptdef ines t h a t l ega l concept broadly as fol lows: HAny ac t throughwhich a plura l i t y o f persons ca n have access to the work withoutpr io r dis t r ibu t ion o f samples o f each one o f them. Communicationi s no t considered publ i c when it takes place within a s t r i c t l ydomest ic environment t ha t i s i n t egra ted or connected to abroadcast network o f any type ."

Nevertheless , the following considerat ions should be made:a) Addressing the act ions repor ted in th i s process, one cannotge t around the f ac t t ha t the Web page in quest ion does not keepthe f i l e s , nor does it d i rec t ly make the download. Th e f i l e s aret r ans fe r red through download programs broadly avai lab le amongIn te rne t users .b) Th e act ions of making avai lab le an d adver t i s ing the gamest h a t are t r ans fe r red fac i l i t a t e download, but they do not providethe means of doing SOi there fore , in pr inc ip le , the can bequal i f ied as ac ts of mere intermediat ion.c) On the other hand, the fees t ha t the Web pageadminist rators receive do not pay fo r the download of the publ ict i t l e s ; r a the r , it i s the pUbl ici ty t ha t comes from gener ic



35/54


access to the page, which i s independent of the pub l ic i ty andwhich can be produced even if there i s no download.d) The operators of the web page, such as they are l i s t ed inthe accusing l ega l record, do not f ac i l i t a t e the removal ofpro tec t ion from the key codes for viewing the spor t ing events ,nor do they make connections with programs tha t do so : r a ther ,they only f ac i l i t a t e the viewing of t e lev is ion programs tha t arebroadcas t openly.

For a l l of the above reasons, the repor ted act ions do notconst i tu te a crime, and the decis ion to dismiss the ac t ion i s inaccordance with law. Furthermore, in regard to a s imila r claimmade by the p l a i n t i f f agains t a d i f fe ren t Web page with s imila rcontent (www. tvmix .ne t ) . th i s Provinc ia l Court al ready ru led onNovember 3, 2008 (Section 5) in which the Court wa s asked if thepar ty responsible for a Web page t ha t fac i l i t a t ed l inks to viewfoo tba l l games from abroad committed a crime or induced thecommission of a crime, and responded as fol lows:

NNo in b o ~ h cases, because e x c e p ~ for w h a ~ i sc lari f ied in ~ h e fol lowing an d f inal conclusion, ~ h e programs ~ h a ~ i n v i ~ e or encourage u ~ i l i z a ~ i o n aref ree ly available, ~ h e i r use i s open and universal ,because ~ h e y do not require any use l i cense , and as ar e s u l ~ , for ~ h e r e p o r ~ e d a c ~ i o n s , ~ h e s u b j e c ~ o f ~ h i s r e p o r ~ , no legal i n f r a c ~ i o n was c o m m i ~ ~ e d , a l ~ h o u g h indeed in some cases a ~ h i r d - p a r ~ y economic c o m p l a i n ~ r e s u l ~ s . i s for ~ h i s reason ~ h a ~ A r ~ i c l e 270 o f ~ h e CP (Criminal Code) does n o ~ apply e i ~ h e r ; requireseconomic damage an d pro f i m o ~ i ve. In regard ~ o ~ h e economic damage i m p u ~ e d ~ h e owners o f ~ h e b r o a d c a s ~ r i g h ~ s o f N a ~ i o n a l League games, said damage has n o ~ been d e ~ e r m i n e d , given ~ h e ever-changing world o f



36/54


the Internet , in which proof o f e i ther case becomespract ical ly imposs ible , therefore it i s lacking adeterminant element o f t h i s [proof} (STS 1578/02), noro f the exis tence o f a pro f i t motive on the par t o f thedefendant who, according to the experts appearing inthe proceedings, did not receive any type o f benef i tfor serving as a " l ink , " but from indirectremuneration from the Web portal publ ic i t y . In th issame context , we emphasize the Supreme Court sentence529/2001 o f Apr i l 2, 2001, which indicates that tha twhich i s punishable are the importing o f s tolen works,bu t not those legal ly acquired abroad, even thoughthe i r commercialization in Spain has not beenauthorized here, so that the t i t l e owner ca n defendagains t such conduct through prevent ive in junctionsand the system o f respons ibi l i ty out l ined in Ar t ic le138 f f . o f the Inte l lec tual Property [Law}. I t can beassumed that t h i s can be appl ied to the t ypicalconduct o f Ar t ic le 286, which has not been violated inth is case e i ther ."

These same c r i t e r i a are appl i cable to the present case , in whichthe denounced ac t i ons completely l ack cr iminal re levance .

For a l l of the above reasons , the appeal i s denied.

SECOND - Not having found the pa r t i e s ac t ing in bad f a i th and ingiven the denia l of the appeal , the cos ts fo r t h i s appel la tehear ing should be declared th e cour t ' s own, as author ized byAr t i c l e s 239 o f the Law of Criminal Judgment.

ORDER OF THE COURTTHE COURT AGREES: WE DENY the appeal pe t i t i on f i l ed by the l ega lrepresenta t ive of AUDIOVISUAL SPORT S.L. agains t the cour t orderof Ju ly 15, 2009, i ssued by In s t ruc t ing Court number 37 of Madrid



37/54


(previous proceedings 2517/2007), which we confirm in i t sen t i r e ty , declar ing the cos ts o f t h i s appel late hearing "deof ic io" [ the cour t ' s own expenses] .

Notice of th i s verd ic t sh a l l be posted, agains t which there i s nofur ther appeal , and the Ins t ruc t ing Court sha l l be informed,including cer t i f i ca t ion of t h i s verd ic t .

The Magistrates l i s t ed in the margin agree, confirm, and s ignt h i s decis ion, which I cer t i fy .



38/54

Case 1: 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 17 of 33.07-05-10 13:26 913209356

RAMON" I.lt.ANCO BLANCO

BLANCOPROCURADOR->9348Sl792 RCM

C/ Mequi!1t:l'"JI''' 9 -\" c:21m2:! Mndriur.,.,tIrlIlJorde I.}. 't'ribUhtdr5"/lftido Jallicilll 11m- MadfilJ (41)ilal

tU.F.: 51.661.H'1O-T1".;lclolll) y iil'< : 91.3?O.91.Sf>M( . f; 6IOj-l.'I1':\'1cilllll,nhfunl;


39/54

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 18 of 33,07-05-10 13:26 913209356 BLANCOPROCURIIDOR->934882792 ECI1 PIlG. 112

,_",lilJA ' I I I 1 ~ " ' : I ; : ~ '"rlo:.I,;'; I r ~ -

OIdrid

Rollo nUffiero 51/2010Diligencias ~ r e v i a s nUmero 2517/200aJuzgado de I n s t r ~ c c i 6 n numero 3 d e . M ~ a : d ~ r ~ ~ . d ~ ______" _ II (!>lIn ( ' ( I ' ( ---,-. . . . .", ' 1, .. o , 1 1 t 1 ; ' ~ H I I'lt\I}O'/I' '. I l / , ; C F . f ' ( I I ) : ~ ' . ~ J U .. I ,W ' " j ) IB C:::'1ECCION PRnlERAIimos. Sres. MtfcuJo '5J.2______ .E.C. 11200&p.z:esidente:

Don A l e j a n d ~ o Maria Benito LopezMagistrados:

Do5a Arace l i Perdices LopezD O ~ Eduardo de Parres Ortiz de Urbina

AUTO N2 364/10

......- ...... -"-"-

En ~ a d r i d . a vein t is ie te de ab r i l de dos mil diez

P:RIMERO.- El d ia 15 de C'ulio de 2009 e l / l a I lmo/a Sr /aMagistrado/a Juez del Juzgaco de !nstracci6n numero 37 deMadrid dict6 auto por e1 que acord6 e1 sobreseimientoprovisiona: y ,:lrchivQ de la s presentes di l igencias .N o ~ i f i c a d o a la s par tes , l a representacion proceaal deAUDIOVISUAL SPORT S .L . i : l t e rpuso de ap e l ac i 6 n d e l que s a hedado t ras lado a l Minister io F i s c a l y demas p a r t e s quie;1es hansol ici tado la deses t imaci6n del r e c u ~ s o .

SEGUNDO. - Rerr.i t ido e l oportuno testimonio de la s .:lctuacionesa es te ~ r i b u n a l para la resolucion del recurso sa ha senalado



40/54

Case 1:11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 19 of 3307-05-10 t3:26 913209356 BLANCOPROCURADOR->934882792 ReM PAG. 113

, I I .'..... ;:' .

;;:.IiiliI.'n',J".J::1tlt.!,.!11 :.

I IMadrid

e1 dia 8 de Abri..l de 2010 pa.ra la del iberacion, votaci6n yfallo. d e s i q n ~ b d o s e Ponente a Don Eduardo de Porras Ortiz deUrbina, que expresa e1 pareeer de 1a Sala.

PRlMERO.- En las presentes diligencias se invest iga la p a g i ~ a Web www.rojadirecta.com. pagina qu e se basd en "sl inks" qu epermiten bejar, a traves de programa.s de intercambio "puerto apuerto" archivos 0 t icheros de contenido o.iverso entre lo sdist intos usua r ios 0 invitados, en concreto, partidos deftltbol emitidos en otros paiae;s y cuyos derechos deexplotaC'ion en Espana oorrespondsn a la quere : lante ,Audioviosual Spore S.L.

a c u s a c i 6 ~ par t icular entiende que existe un acto decomunicaoi6n pUblica de obras protegidas por l a Ley depropiedad Inte lactual sin autorizacion de los respectivost i tu lares .Es un c r i ter io general izado actualmente qu e 190 actividad dedescarg90 de archivos a "traves de In terne t no es cor. .s t i tut ivade del i to . Baste c i t a r e1 c r i t e r i o de 10. Circular 1/2006 de laFiscal ia General del Estado para poner de relevancia esa~ i r c u n s t a n c i a . En 10. referida Circular se a:irma 10 s iguiente :

En cuanto a 1a r ; ip i f icac ion de la conducta de qui encoloca a t raves de un serv.idor en un s i t io de la Redobras proteg;tdas sin autorizaci6n del ti ular de losderechos de expiotaci6n, puede incardinarse centro delos supuesto's de comunicacion no autorizada, pero enes t e supuesto s i nO es ta acreditada ningun{Icontraprestacion para el, no concurrira e1 elementot lp ico del animo de luero , pudisndo perseguirse esaconducta s610 oarno ilici o civ:i.J.. Respect;o del usuario



41/54

Case 1:11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 20 of 3307-05-JO 13:27 913209356 B L A N C O P R O C U R ~ D O R - > 9 3 4 8 8 2 7 9 2 RCM PAG. 04:,"' ,: :.\.,,:

{'.."1l1 :',ll);:1 1d. k . I I ; I ~ . '

adrid

que nbaja 0 se c'J.esca.rga. de 113 Red" una obra, y obtieneesta sin con trapres taci6n, como consecuencia de un actode comunicaci,6n no 8.utorizado realizado p o l . ~ ot:r:o,: t 'ealiza una capia pri1,rada de la ohra que no puede serconsiderado como conducta penalmente tipica. En 10 querespecta e la responsabilidad de los proveedores deservicios en 18. sociedad de 1a informacion, 10 5 mismos110 serin responsables cUlindo e1 se.rvicio que prestan seae1 de simple intermediaci6n, dentro de los terminos queestablecen los articulos 14 a 18 de 18. Ley 34/2002, de11 aa j u l i o , de .serv ic ios de 1a sociedad de lainformaci6n y de comercio electrOnico.

obstante 10 anterior , en e s ~ e proceso 10 que s hainvestigado y cuestiona no es la actividad de la s personas quesa integ-ran en la red de intercambio de al:'ohivos sino la delos responsables de 1a pagina que provee es te s s rv ic io , y queobt iener . ademas una ventaja econ6edca p ~ r BU actividad por masque sea ind i rec ta , ya que no se r e t r ibuye deecarga s ino 1apublicidad de 1a inserta en la propia pagina y que sevi sua l i za con independencia de que se produzca 0 no d e s c ~ r g a .

I"OIi> r e ~ p o n s a : O l e s de la pag-ina no real i tan de forll1a directaaetos de comunicaci6n publica de OOJ:'as pro teg idas par la LPIya que no alojan en Sl lS archivos lo s t i tu lo$ descargados .Unicamente favorecen esa conducta en la medida en qu eseleccionan. ordenan e inferman sebre la forma de acceder ala s :paginas que ofrecen la retransmisi6n de partidos,

No es desdef iable l a postura de quienes sos t ienen que s i sevalora 1a ac t iv idad investigada de conjunto y en funci6n d e lresul tado f i na l , las paginas we b como l a i n v e s ~ i g a d a p u d i e ~ a ~ estar ofertando p ~ b l i c a m e n t e obras pro t eg idas y realizando lo saetos de apoyo necesarios para qu e los ~ s u a r i o 5 de la red secomuniquen y u t i l i cen esa ofe r ta publ i ca de las obras . Sulabor, desde esta perspectiva, no ser ia de mera intermediaci6n



42/54

Case 1:11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 21 of 3307-65-10 13:27 913209356 B L A N C O P R O C U R ~ D O R - > 9 3 4 8 8 2 7 9 2 KeM P ~ G . 05

AIOlltl.t"-tl ' 1 ' ~ " H t ,j"J,I',I,;i'!

",drid

sino e1 nucleo de a c ~ i v i d a d qu e anuncia y posibi l i ta e1intercambio mash'o de archivos a los usuarios que, l3in esapuhEcidad y organizadon. no poddan hacerlo 0 10 podrianhacer de forma signif icat ivamente ~ ~ s l imitada. Las labores deo ~ d e n a c ~ 6 n y ofer ta de las obras podrian const i tu i r un acto decomunicaci6:l publica no auto:dzada per mas que tecnicamentesea e l usuario y no e:: proveedor quien de facto ponga adisposic!.6n d e l pUblico e1 archivo, E l proveedor anuncia yofert.a a lo s usuarios de forma pUblica Ia obra protegida yfac i l i ta en algunos cases lo s medios '.:;ecnicos para que lo su s u a r ~ o s e r . : a c e ~ entre sf y realicen Ia descarga. Tal posic!6npodria t ene r apoyo en 91 ar t icu:o 20 de 1a Ll?I en e l que sad e f i ~ e e1 concepto de " c o ~ ~ ' i c a c i 6 n p u b l i c a ~ de forma abier tae:'l. cuanto dicho precepto define ese concepto jur idica de :ormaamplia de 1a s iguiente forma: "todo Cicto par e1 cual unapluralidad de personas pueda tener acceso a la oera sin pretriadistribuci6n de ejemplares de cada una de elIas. No seconsiderara publica 1a coml.lnicaci6n cuando se celebre dentrode un ambito estrictamente domestico que e s t ~ integrado 0conectada a una red de difusion de cualquier t i p o ~ .

Sin embargo, deben hacerse las siguientes consideraciones:

a} En atenci6n a lo s hechos acreditados en este p ~ o c e s o nopueda soslayarse 1a circunstancia de qu e 1a pagina webinvestigada no aloja los archivos, ni rea l iza directamente 1ad e s c a r ~ a , Los archivos se transfieren a traves de programas dedescarga de amplia difusi6n entre los usuarios de Internet .

b) L o ~ aetos de ordenBei6n y ar:uncio de los part idos que set rBns f ie ren faci l i tan 1a descarga perc no pueden equipararse ae s t a , por 10 que, en principio podrian cal i f icarse de aetos demera intermediaci6n.c} Por otra parte . 1a retribuc10n que o);)r.ienen losadmin i s t r ado re s de la pil9':'na no compensa la descarga de los



43/54

...',',-i HI!

j \ " ' l n r : I : . J I ~ ( . ' v r ' :' :.I.:Ii:j:l

I IM;idrid

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 22 of 33B L A N C O P R O C U R A D O R - > 9 3 ~ 8 8 2 7 9 2 ECM illiG. 06

t i tulos sino la publicidad derivada del acceso generico a lapagina, que as independient.e c.e esta y que se puede produciraunque no haya descarga.

d) Los gestQres de la pagina, t a l y corea se indica en e1 auto~ m p u Q n a d o , no fac i l i tan :a des?rotecci6n de los c6digos claveepara e l visionado de los e ~ e n t o s deport ivos, ni realizancanexionas con prograrras de desprotecci6n, sino qu e faci l i tanunicamente e1 visionado de programss de te levision emitidos enabierto.Par todo ello, los hachaB denunciadoB no son constitutivos dedel i to y la deei$i6n de sohreseer las actuacianes es conformsa derecho. A mayor abundamiento, sobre una reclamacion similarefect.uada por la denunciante concra otra pagina de contenidosimilar (www.tVll.lix.net} ya se ha pronunciado esta AudienciaI?rovincial er:. sentencia de 3 de Noviem.bre de 2008 (Seccionsa) en 1a que e l Tribunal se preguntaba s i e1 responsable deuna T;laqinCl WEB que faci l i taba .enlaces para ver partidol3 defutbol desde e l extranjero cometia del i to 0 inducia a lacomision de un d e l i ~ o y respondia en lO B s iguientes t e r ~ i n o s :

"No en ambos casos, porque a r e s e r v ~ de 10 que sed i l u c i a ~ con 1a s iguiente y ultima conc1usion, losprogramas que i n v i t ~ 0 incluso i nc i ta a ut i l i zar , son del ibre uso, y BU ut i l i zaci6n es ab ier ta y universal, por10 que no necesitan ninguna l icancia oe uso, y enconsecuencia, para lo s hechaB denunciCiaos, objeto deeste informe, no se comete ninguna infracc i6n, aunqve s ise produce en algunos casos quebxanto econ6mico aterceros. Es pox ello que tampocQ quedaria acreditado e larticulo 270 del CP que preaisa de un perjuicioeconomico y de UZl a11imo de lucro_ En relaci6n a1perjllicio econ6mico in feri do a lo s t i tulares de losderechos de emisi6n de lo s partidos de Lige Npcional nose ba podido detarminar e1 mismo dado e l movedizQ mundo



44/54

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 23 of 3307-05-10 t 3 : 3 ~ 913209356 BLANCOPROCURADOR->934682792 KCM PAG. III

.r.~ . l I h ...

1\( 11 . r .H.I 'II !'t Ie jl}:;i!' '.

ildrid

de In terne t en e l que la prueba de ta l extrema resultapracticamente imposible, par 10 que Ealtaria un alamencod e t e r ~ i n a n t e de ssts (STS 1578/02) ni tampoco 14existeneia. de un animo de lucro par p,;lrt;e de1 imputadoque segUn las periciales obrantes en las actuaciones noobten1.a ningUn tipo de beneficia par servir de hlirtk"sino por 1a remuneraci6n indirecta de Ia publicidad delportal . E l l es t e mismo contexto destaca 1a sentencia delTribunal Supremo 529/2001 de 2 de abri l en la que indicaque 10 .oaZlc.1anable .son 1a importaci6n de las obra.susurpadas pero no las adquiridas liei. tamente en e lextraniero aunaue su eomercializaci6n en Espai!a no bayasiao aqu[ au tori zada. , por 10 que de esa conducta puededefenderse el t i tu lar medianta la s medidas cautelares ysisteI l lCi de responsdbilidad pre"t.risto en el ar t i cu lo 138 ys . s . de la Propiedad Intelectual. Supuesto esteextrapolable a 1a conducta t ipica del articulo 286 quetampoco se veria conculcado en e1 presente supuesto H

Estos mismos c r i t e r i o s son a p l ~ c a b ~ e s a l presen te caso 10 queabunda en l a fBl ta de r e levanc ia penal de lo s hechosdenu.""1ciados.

:Por todo 10 ex:.:luesto, precede l a desestimaci6n de l r ecur so .SEG'O'NDO.- No aprecianc.ose mala fa y pese a l a desest imaciondel racurso deben declararse de of icio l a s c o s t a s procesalesde e s t a a lzada , segun al . : torizan lo s ar t .{culos 21 9 yc o ~ c o r d a n t e s de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Cr.iminal.

LA SALA ACUERDAIi n t e L ~ u e s t o p ~ r laSPORT S.L. contra

PARTE DISPOSITrv.A

DESESTIMAMOS e1 recurSQ de apelacionrepresentacion pr ocesa l de A ~ D I O V I S U A L e1 auto de fecha 15 de JuJ. ': o de 2009

dic ' ;ado po r e:- Juzgado de Ine t rucc i6n tlUmero 37 de YIadrid



45/54

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 24 of 3307-05-10 13:30 913209356 BLANCOPROCURADOR->934882792 ECM PAG. G2

. Ih11111:.' " : ~ I I I

(Ii, h.:',

Madnd

fDil igencias Previas2517/2007) I que confirmamos i n t e g ~ a m e n t e , declarando de oficio l a s costas de esta alzada.

esta resoluci6:'l, contra la que no cabe recursoalquno, y p6ngase ec conocimiento del Juzgado de I n s t ~ c c i 6 n . remitiendo ce r t i f i c ac ion de l a presente reso:uci6n.

Lo acuerdan, mandan y f i r ~ n los Sres. Magistrados que figurana l margen, 10 que cert i f ieo.

. ~ .



46/54


EXHIBIT 2



47/54


TRANSLAT ION S TATEMENT

To whom it may concern:I. Lisa Grayson. do hereby swear and certify the following:1. That 1am certified by the American Translators Association (ATA)for translation from Spanish into ~ n g l i s h . and that my ATA membership is in good standing;2. That the following page is a valid copy of my ATA credentialcertificate. altered only to prevent duplication;3. That the attached English-language document is my translation ofthe fax cover sheet and court verdict that 1 received from DurieTangri LLP. a copy of which is attached after the ~ n g l i s h translation;4. That. to the best of my knowledge. the English document is anaccurate and faithful translation of the document I received fromDurie Tangri LLP.

I f '. . . ! - - L - - - ' ~ ~ / 4 ~ 4 4 p ~ 1 ~ / l - ..---- ..Lisa GraysoV IATA Member No. 224476

LISA GRAYSON 2502 W. ~ a s t w o o d Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60625 (773) 463-8128

!=ebruary 10. 2011

e-mail: [email protected]



48/54

(OOOC$7'1b

THE AMERIC AN TRANSLATORS ASSOCIAnONPowldcd in 1959Having s ~ c c e s s f u l l y completed the examination required by the Comm ittee on Accreditation.Copy invalid ut!Xs a c w m ~ n i e d by original lettersigned by Lisa ~ ~ r f 1 . urayson

a Member in good star.-ding of the Association, subscribing to its Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices, is granted tIllsCopy invalid ~ ~ T l ? ~ ~ i p g ~ r s m r l ~ 1 ~ t 1 8 P r f r o m Spanish into English

Issued under the seal of the Association this June 27,2001~ o - r J 9 I a . - m ~

Shuckran KamalChair, ATA Accreditation Committcc

ess accompanied by original letter L , , ( / f H ~.t . ~ ~ ~ .. ~ t . Courtney Searls-RidgeSecrct;U)'. ATA

TIlls cenificale is v,did only in combination with membership ill good standing in the Americ:m Trauslators Association.

ur.t) lu



49/54


RAMON BLANCO BLANCOCourt AttorneyMadrid Capital Judicial DistrictTax 1.0. No.: 51.667.B90-T

(address:) CjMequinenza No.9 =1st FloorMadrid 28022, SpainTelephone and fax: 91.320.93.56Mobile: [email protected]

FAX TRANSMISSIONADDRESSEE:FAX NUMBER:

Mr. JAVIER MAESTRE RODRIGUEZ (Attorney at Law)91.222.67.95DATE: July 20, 2009SUBJECT: Summary proceedingsCOURT: No.37COURT RECORD NO. 2517/07CLIENT: Mr. Igor Seoane Mifian

MESSAGEDear colleague:I am sending you the attached dismissal of action, issued today.Please accept my best wishes.(signature)No. of pages including attachment: 3



50/54


PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION COURT NO. 37MADRID(address) PLAZA DE CASTILLA 1, 6th FloorTelephone: ( i l legible) Fax: ( i l legible)Ident i f ica t ion Number: ( i l legible)

DECREE

In Madrid, on July f i f t een th , two thousand nineFACTS

SOLE FACT - The cur ren t proceeding was s ta r ted by the ac t ionst h a t r esu l ed from the previous l ega l proceedings, dueinves t iga t ive di l igence having been pract iced as indicated incour t records .

LEGAL REASONINGSOLE ISSUE From the di l igence carr ied out , t h a t i s ,declarat ions of the accused and an exper t repor t on f i l e incour t records , it i s c lea r t ha t the In te rne t pages administeredby th e accused did not fac i l i t a t e the removal of protect ion fromthe key codes fo r viewing the spor t ing events , nor d id theycreate a connection with protect ion-removal programs; ra ther ,what they fac i l i t a t ed were l inks to download programs t ha tallowed the viewing of such events tha t , a l hough ( the events)were with access through a coded system in Spain, are openlybroadcast on Internat ional TV channels; it does not follow tha tth e harmful conduct of the accused, nor the programs they madeavai lable were not freely used, t he i r use being open anduniversa l , not obtain ing from another party the denounced d i rec tbenef i t s by fac i l i t a t ing such l inks , but ra ther ind i rec tremuneration of the web por ta l publ ic i ty .

For the above reasons, it not appearing t ha t the commissionof a criminal inf rac t ion has been duly proved, the provi s iona ld i smissa l of act ion hereby proceeds, and closing the f i l e of theac t ions taken in appl icat ion! of the provis ions of Art ic le 779.1,sect ion 1, of the Criminal Judgment Law as re la ted to sect ionno. 1 of Art ic le 641 of the same l ega l t ex t .

ORDER OF THE COURTTHE PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL OF ACTION AND CLOSING THE FILE OF THEPRESENT CLAIM IS HEREBY APPROVED.1 Typo in original. I am assuming that apalicacion should have been aplicacion (application).



51/54


The Prosecu tor ' s Office and other in te res ted par t i es sha l l benot i f i ed of th i s reso lu t ion , a le r t ing them t h a t they may f i l e ape t i t i on fo r review and/or appeal agains t the decis ion beforet h i s Court within a per iod o f THREE DAYS.Thus agrees, ' orders , and s igns Ms. PURIFICACION ELISA ROMEROPAREDES, MAGISTRATE-JUDGE of the Madrid P r e - t r i a l Inves t iga t ionCourt No. 37 and th e Jud ic ia l D is t r i c t . I hereby swear.



52/54

Case1:11-cv-03983-PAC Document2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 31 of 33 20-07-09 16:45 913209356 DLANCOPROCURADOR->934882792 ReM

RAMON StANCO BLANCOPrucurlldordt IuIt Trlbuos\esP a r t i d ~ Jvditial do M.dritf (:apilAl

N I.J' . S I M7.IIw:r


53/54

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 32 of 3320-07-09 16:45 913209356 BLANCOPROCURADOR->934B82792 ReM

JUZGADO DE INSTRUCCION n 37MADRIDPI.AZJ. DE: =u.u' , 1,6' Pl.'.Y1'ATeletono, n u : s ; . ! ; . r , ~ 7r,-" !'IIX; l t l . ~ ' : a 7 f 1

BECHOS

PAG. 112

ONICO.- El presente procedimiento se inc06 por los hechoBque r esu l t an de las a n t e r i o r ~ s actuaciones, habiendosepracticado l ~ s d i l i g e n c i a ~ de inveDtigacion que constan enautos.R A Z O N ~ E N T O S JURiDICOS

UNICO.- De lasx di l igencias pract icadas , a saber ,declaraciones de lO B imputados e informe per ic ia l obranteen autos, se desprende qu e la s paginas de in te rne tadministradas por los imputados no r ac i l i t an ladesproteccion de lo I s codigos claves para e l visionadol delo s eventos depor t ivas , n i real izan conexiones conprogramas de desproteccion, s ino qu e 10 que fac i l i t abanson enlaces para descargar programas que permit ian e1visionado de t a l e s eventoc que, aunque can acceso desistema codif icado en Espana, son emitidos en abier to porcanales de TV In ternacional ; no se desprende ni elcomportamiento do1oso de los imput.ados, n i que lOGprogramas que S 8 fac i l i t aban no fuesen de l ib re usa,siendo su ut i l izac ion abier ta y universal , no obteniendop ~ r otra par te los denunciados beneficios directos porf a c i l i t a r t a l es enlaces, sino remuneracion indirecta de l apublicidad del por ta l .

Por 10 expuesto, no apareciendo debidamentejus t i f icada la perpetracian de inf raccion penal , procedee1 eobreseimiento provis ional y a r c h i v ~ de la s actuacionesen apalicacion de 10 dispuesto en e1 ar t icu lo 779 . 1 , 1 dela Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal en r e lac ion con e1 num.del ar t icu lo 64l del mismo Texto Legal.PARTE DISPOSITIVA

SE ACUERDA BL SOBRESEIMIENTO PROVISIONAL Y BL ARCHIVO DE LAPRESENTE CAUSA,



54/54

Case 1 11-cv-03983-PAC Document 2 Filed 06/13/11 Page 33 of 3320-07-09 16:45 913209356 BLANCOPROCURAOOR->934882792 EeM PM. OJ

P6ngase esta resolucion en conocimiento del MinisterioFisca l y demas partes personadas, previniendoles que contrala mierna podran interponer, ante este Juzgado, recurso dereforma y/o apelaci6n, en e1 plazo de TRES DIAS.Asi 10 acuerda, manda y f i rma D. PURIFlCACION ELISA ROMgaOPAREDES , MAGISTRADQ-JUEZ del Juzgado de Instrucci6n n G 37de f4ADRID y su part ido.- Doy fe.


puerto 80 v. united states - appellant's unopposed emergency motion for expedited review

Documents