..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

November 24, 2003

COMPLAINT
Indies Vs. MPAA
page 1

Gregory L. Curtner (GC 5395)
Susan I. Robbins (SR 5759)
Fredrick R. Juckniess
Kimberly K. Kefalas
Atleen Kaur
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, P.L.C.
1450 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 704-4400
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANTIDOTE INTERNATIONAL FILMS, a corporation;
ELEMENTAL FILMS, a corporation;
HEAD QUARTER PICTURES; a corporation;
INDEPENDENT DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation;
INDEPENDENT ENTERTAINMENT, a corporation;
KILLER FILMS, a corporation; Civil action No. ______
OPEN CITY FILMS, a limited liability company;
SALTY FEATURES, a limited liability company;
SANDCASTLE 5 PRODUCTIONS, a corporation;
SANFORD/PILLSBURY PRODUCTIONS, a corporation;
TALKING WALL PICTURES, a corporation;
THIS IS THAT CORPORATION.;
IFP/LOS ANGELES; and
IFP/NEW YORK
Plaintiffs,
v.
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a corporation.
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, allege upon knowledge with respect to their own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION – THE JOINT BAN ON AWARDS SCREENERS
1. This action seeks to halt and remove an unlawful restraint of trade in the production, promotion and distribution of motion pictures in the interstate and foreign commerce of the United States. Defendant, the Motion Picture Association of America ("the MPAA"), is conspiring with substantially all of the major motion picture studios in the United States and their controlled affiliates to eliminate a significant feature of competitive rivalry among themselves in relevant markets in the motion picture industry. Defendant's signatory members, along with other participants in the conspiracy, control the regulatory process of their trade association, the MPAA, and have wrongfully conspired to use that control to disadvantage and to erect barriers against fair competition from small, independent film producers such as plaintiffs. The MPAA has mandated an anticompetitive, unjustified, pretextual and unnecessarily restrictive ban on one significant method of promoting films, awards screeners, has bound its signatories' subsidiary distribution companies to abide by these rules, and has conspired with the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ("the Academy") to unlawfully restrict trade in one or more relevant markets related to critics' evaluation awards events.

The MPAA has also tortiously induced its signatories and their subsidiaries to breach both express and implied agreements relating to the promotion of independently produced films.

2. The foreseeable and intended result of these unlawful actions, unless enjoined by this Court, is and will be to immediately cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and other independent producers of films which will not be promoted effectively or seen widely enough for fair consideration during this year's awards consideration process, to severely restrict the ability of small, independent film production companies to enter the film production and promotions market by raising costs and other barriers, to chill the financing of independent films, to further entrench the shared monopoly power enjoyed by Major Studios, to inhibit competition in the market for television broadcasts of motion picture awards shows, and to decrease choice, decrease quality, restrict output, and increase prices to consumers in the motion picture distribution markets ("theatrical release markets") and in aftermarkets for both video and DVD rentals and purchases ("aftermarkets").

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6