Viral DRM LLC v. Maryna Lietucheva

Background

Viral DRM LLC alleged that defendants, described in the order as foreign YouTube uploaders, downloaded and uploaded Viral DRM’s copyrighted videographic works. According to the plaintiff’s submissions, the defendants placed advertising on the videos, generated advertising revenue, increased their channel subscribers, and used the content for other money-making activities.

Viral DRM said it sent copyright takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It alleged that defendants responded with materially false counternotices claiming ownership or lawful rights to use the works, despite lacking a good-faith belief in those statements. Viral DRM also alleged that defendants removed, altered, or falsified copyright-management information.

Viral DRM sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and an order restraining the transfer of assets. It argued that funds earned through advertising needed to be frozen to preserve potential damages, profits, and accounting remedies because the defendants might transfer the money outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief intended to prevent immediate, irreparable harm until the court can hold a hearing. The court considered whether Viral DRM showed a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. For emergency relief without advance notice, the court also considered whether specific facts showed that immediate harm would occur before defendants could respond and whether the required notice certification was provided.

Based on the complaint, motion, declarations, and exhibits, the court concluded that Viral DRM had a strong probability of proving at trial that defendants infringed its copyrighted works, submitted false counternotices in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), and removed, altered, or falsified copyright-management information in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The court also found that the alleged piracy, monetization, false counternotices, false contact information, and defendants’ locations outside the United States supported a finding of immediate and irreparable harm before defendants could be heard.

Order

The court granted the motion and entered a temporary restraining order. Until further court order, defendants and persons acting with notice of the order were prohibited from downloading, uploading, copying, displaying, distributing, or creating derivative works from Viral DRM’s copyrighted works. They were also required to stop using those works on YouTube, Facebook, or other websites and channels they owned, operated, or controlled.

The order prohibited defendants from transferring ownership or control of their YouTube channels and Google AdSense accounts. It required them to preserve relevant computer files and retrieve files that may have been deleted before the order.

Upon receiving notice, Google, YouTube, Google AdSense, and specified financial institutions, payment processors, banks, and money-transfer services were ordered to freeze covered channels, accounts, and funds; identify related accounts; restrain and divert covered funds to a court trust holding account; and provide information about the funds, transactions, channel receipts, and defendants’ identities and contact information. The order prohibited transfers of restrained funds without express court authorization, while allowing an affected defendant or account holder to petition to modify the asset restraint.

Viral DRM was required to post a $5,000 bond to cover damages defendants might be entitled to if the injunction or restraint proved wrongful. The order also required Viral DRM to post case documents on a specified website and serve them by email using addresses provided to Google and YouTube. The court set a September 18, 2023 hearing at which defendants or other affected persons could challenge the order and the court would hear the request for a preliminary injunction. The opinion states that the order disposed of Docket No. 5; it does not state that the preliminary injunction itself was granted.