Viral DRM, LLC v. Shubstorsky
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-00733
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Viral DRM v. Shubstorsky, Judge Corley denied without prejudice alternative service because Viral DRM did not show email would likely provide actual notice.
Viral DRM’s effort to serve Anton Shubstorsky by email and website posting was denied without prejudice; the order did not decide the copyright allegations.
What happened
Viral DRM, LLC sued Anton Shubstorsky, alleging that he copied and re-uploaded its copyrighted extreme-weather videos on YouTube. Viral DRM asked to notify him by email and by posting documents on a website.
The court said service on a person in another country must follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) and provide notice reasonably likely to reach that person. Viral DRM did not identify the email addresses it would use, attach the records supporting the proposed address, or provide enough evidence that the address was legitimate and likely to reach Shubstorsky. The court also noted inconsistencies involving the YouTube channels and the number of email addresses.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied without prejudice Viral DRM’s motion for alternative service. The order resolved only the service request and did not decide the copyright allegations.
The detailed version
- Viral DRM, LLC v. Shubstorsky · No. 3:24-cv-00733
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 11, 2024
Background
Viral DRM, LLC alleged that Anton Shubstorsky downloaded and copied its copyrighted video materials, edited them, removed copyright-management information, and uploaded infringing versions to YouTube. Viral DRM also alleged that the activity promoted a YouTube channel, increased its subscribers, and generated advertising or other business revenue. The opinion describes these as allegations; it did not decide whether they were true.
Viral DRM asked for permission to serve Shubstorsky through alternative means—email to an address it said Google provided in response to a subpoena, along with posting on a designated website. Shubstorsky is described in the opinion as a citizen of Ukraine.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual in a foreign country. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may authorize methods such as email if an international agreement does not prohibit them and if the method satisfies due process. Here, due process required a method reasonably calculated to notify Shubstorsky of the lawsuit and give him an opportunity to respond.
The court found Viral DRM’s showing inadequate. Viral DRM did not identify the email address or addresses it intended to use and did not attach Google’s response to the subpoena. The court also noted that it had not authorized a subpoena to Google in this action, leaving unclear how the address had been obtained.
The court further found that Viral DRM had not shown that any address supplied to Google was legitimate or likely to reach Shubstorsky. Viral DRM argued that Shubstorsky would have needed a valid email address to submit copyright-related notices, receive payment information, and communicate with YouTube. But Viral DRM had alleged that information in one of Shubstorsky’s notices was fraudulent. The court also noted that the notices attached to the complaint concerned the YouTube channel NA WEATHER rather than the WAHR channel identified in the allegations.
Finally, the motion referred to multiple electronic contacts, while the supporting declaration referred only to one email address. The court found it unclear whether this inconsistency was a typographical error or whether multiple addresses existed.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied without prejudice Viral DRM’s motion to serve Shubstorsky by alternative means. The order disposed of Docket No. 13. It ruled on the proposed service method, not on the merits of Viral DRM’s copyright claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.