Sima Products Enjoined Under DMCA
Macrovision v. Sima Products Corporation (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2006)
Highlights from the Opinion:
Plaintiff Macrovision sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant Sima Products Corporation from selling certain “video enhancer” products, which may be used to circumvent Macrovision's Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) copy protection technology.* * *
Sima manufactures, markets, and sells several hardware products, most under the monikers “CopyThis!” and “GoDVD,” that eliminate Macrovision's [Analog Copy Protection (“ACP”)] from an analog signal. The consumer can then make a suitable recording of the analog signal on videotape or other recording device.* * *
The ACP removal function is effectuated by a single chip, often the SA7114 or a similar chip manufactured by Philips. Macrovision contends, and Sima does not dispute, that the devices could be fitted with an alternate chip manufactured by Philips, that, under license from Macrovision, recognizes the ACP and does not allow for its circumvention.* * *
Sima argues that it does not violate [the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”)] because the “primary purpose” of its devices is not circumvention. However, on this record, Sima's argument is not persuasive. Though some of the devices have some auxiliary functions, it has not been argued that it is necessary for the device to be able to circumvent Macrovision's ACP in order to perform these functions. Sima has not argued that using the Macrovision-licensed Philips chips would prevent the devices from performing the auxiliary functions or facilitating the copying of non-protected works, such as home videos. The devices therefore have “only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent” the ACP. Sima markets its products “for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected” under the DMCA. On its own website, Sima touts the devices' capability of circumventing copy protection on copyrighted works. And Sima's defense that it only intends to enable “fair use” copying of copyrighted works is no defense at all as stated above, the DMCA provides no exception to its prohibition of the manufacture of these devices.* * *
Furthermore, Sima cites no authority, and this Court is aware of none, for the proposition that “fair use” includes the making of a backup copy.* * *
Injunctive relief is appropriate in this instance. Macrovision has made a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Sima has not stated that it intends to stop selling the contested devices in the absence of an injunction, so it is likely that future violations will continue. Macrovision lacks an adequate remedy at law, because its business model rests upon its being able to prevent the copying of copyrighted works. If it is unable to prevent the circumvention of its technology, its business goodwill will likely be eroded, and the damages flowing therefrom extremely difficult to quantify.
Holding: “Sima is hereby preliminarily enjoined from selling the CT-1, CT-Q1, CT-100, CT-2, CT-200, SCC, and SCC-2 products, and any other products that circumvent Macrovision's copyright protection technologies in violation of the DMCA, conditioned upon Macrovision posting a bond in the amount of $100,000[.]”