Devils Films, Inc. v. Nectar Video, 29 F.Supp.2d 174 (S.D.N.Y.,1998).
• Procedural Posture
o Plaintiff sought an order of seizure, directing the United States Marshal to enter the defendants' premises and seize videocassettes containing unlicensed copies of plaintiff's copyrighted films. The plaintiff also sought to have the Marshall seize all of defendant’s business records and to freeze all of defendant’s assets.
• Facts
o From the short opinion, the pertinent facts appear to be as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of copyrights in several hundred pornographic videos. The defendant was selling unauthorized copies of plaintiff’s videos in defendant’s store. The plaintiff sought preliminary relief in federal court to seize the infringing videos and enjoin the defendant from engaging in future acts that might violate plaintiff’s copyrights.
• Holding:
o Applying the definition of obscenity established in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the court found that plaintiff’s videos were obscene because they consisted of “hard core pornography bereft of any plot.†The court went on to hold that probable cause existed to believe that the plaintiff was violating 18 U.S.C. § 1466, which makes it a felony to engage in the business of selling or transferring obscene material shipped in interstate commerce. The court found that given the criminal nature of plaintiff’s business, it would be inappropriate for the court to exercise its equitable power to come to plaintiff’s assistance. The court decided to invoke the doctrine of unclean hands and leave the parties where it found them, denying plaintiff any relief.
• Important Dicta
o “Since this is only an application for preliminary relief, the Court need not decide if obscenity is a defense to a claim of copyright violation.â€
 The procedural posture of this case is important in understanding its precedental value. This was a motion for preliminary relief, and the court noted that it was not deciding whether obscenity was a defense to copyright infringement
• Future Importance/ Unanswered questions
o This case raises the question of what protection is afforded to pornography under federal copyright laws. While the court notes that some circuits have found pornography to be protected under federal law, this question has not been definitively resolved in all jurisdictions.
• Critical Analysis
o The judge’s decision in this case appears to be well reasoned. While federal obscenity laws may not be rigorously enforced, the conduct remains criminal nonetheless. If a plaintiff is engaging in illegal conduct, a court should not come to that plaintiff’s aid and assist a criminal enterprise. The purpose of federal copyright law is to encourage the creation of lawful artistic and literary works. Perhaps laws against pornography need to be revisited, but in the meantime, copyright law should not be used to shield those engaged in arguably illegal conduct.
-Joseph Cramer
• Procedural Posture
o Plaintiff sought an order of seizure, directing the United States Marshal to enter the defendants' premises and seize videocassettes containing unlicensed copies of plaintiff's copyrighted films. The plaintiff also sought to have the Marshall seize all of defendant’s business records and to freeze all of defendant’s assets.
• Facts
o From the short opinion, the pertinent facts appear to be as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of copyrights in several hundred pornographic videos. The defendant was selling unauthorized copies of plaintiff’s videos in defendant’s store. The plaintiff sought preliminary relief in federal court to seize the infringing videos and enjoin the defendant from engaging in future acts that might violate plaintiff’s copyrights.
• Holding:
o Applying the definition of obscenity established in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the court found that plaintiff’s videos were obscene because they consisted of “hard core pornography bereft of any plot.†The court went on to hold that probable cause existed to believe that the plaintiff was violating 18 U.S.C. § 1466, which makes it a felony to engage in the business of selling or transferring obscene material shipped in interstate commerce. The court found that given the criminal nature of plaintiff’s business, it would be inappropriate for the court to exercise its equitable power to come to plaintiff’s assistance. The court decided to invoke the doctrine of unclean hands and leave the parties where it found them, denying plaintiff any relief.
• Important Dicta
o “Since this is only an application for preliminary relief, the Court need not decide if obscenity is a defense to a claim of copyright violation.â€
 The procedural posture of this case is important in understanding its precedental value. This was a motion for preliminary relief, and the court noted that it was not deciding whether obscenity was a defense to copyright infringement
• Future Importance/ Unanswered questions
o This case raises the question of what protection is afforded to pornography under federal copyright laws. While the court notes that some circuits have found pornography to be protected under federal law, this question has not been definitively resolved in all jurisdictions.
• Critical Analysis
o The judge’s decision in this case appears to be well reasoned. While federal obscenity laws may not be rigorously enforced, the conduct remains criminal nonetheless. If a plaintiff is engaging in illegal conduct, a court should not come to that plaintiff’s aid and assist a criminal enterprise. The purpose of federal copyright law is to encourage the creation of lawful artistic and literary works. Perhaps laws against pornography need to be revisited, but in the meantime, copyright law should not be used to shield those engaged in arguably illegal conduct.
-Joseph Cramer