![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/charter.png\")
Legal battles between copyright holders and Internet providers are not new. In most countries these disputes revolve around site blocking but, in the US, the vocal point lies elsewhere.<\/p>\nLegal battles between copyright holders and Internet providers are not new. In most countries these disputes revolve around site blocking but, in the US, the vocal point lies elsewhere.<\/p>\n
Over the past years, several major ISPs have been sued for failing to terminate the accounts of alleged repeat copyright infringers.<\/p>\n
These lawsuits are serious business. Late last year, for example, a jury found Cox liable for the infringements of its customers, awarding a billion dollars<\/a> in damages to several record labels. While the judgment is being appealed, other ISPs are on high alert.<\/p>\n This is also true for Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US. The company was sued last year by several major music companies<\/a>, including Capitol Records, Warner Bros, and Sony Music, which argued that the ISP is liable for pirating subscribers.<\/p>\n In March, Charter replied to the record labels\u2019 complaint. In addition to denying many of the allegations, the ISP also went on the offensive<\/a>. Charter submitted a counterclaim accusing the labels of sending inaccurate, false, deceptive, or even fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. <\/p>\n The claims come after the music companies removed 272 sound recordings and 183 music compositions from their initial complaint. These were dropped after the record labels were ordered to produce further evidence that they indeed owned the rights.<\/p>\n Charter saw this as evidence that the companies, helped by the RIAA, have sent many inaccurate takedown notices in the past. These notices reportedly caused damage to the ISP, which said it incurred costs and reputational damage by forwarding the \u201cfalse accusations.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCharter is injured when it processes inaccurate notices, causing it to forward false accusations to its subscribers, to the extent this creates tension with the impacted subscribers, negatively affects goodwill, and causes reputational harm to Charter,\u201d the counterclaim reads.<\/p>\n The music companies were not impressed by this characterization. They countered the accusations<\/a> by arguing that they were not knowingly aware of any mistakes or errors. In addition, they said there is no evidence that Charter customers were harmed as no customers were disconnected by the ISP. <\/p>\n After hearing the arguments from both sides, US District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled on the matter last week. In a ten-page order, he clearly sides with the music companies. <\/p>\n The Judge ruled that, even if the RIAA and record labels didn\u2019t have a valid complaint for the 455 works, there is no evidence that they knowingly made these wrong claims.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if I assume, as does Charter, that plaintiffs dropped the 455 works because they did not have a valid infringement claim as to them, Charter has not alleged facts plausibly showing that plaintiffs knowingly or materially misrepresented its infringement claims in the original complaint,\u201d Judge Jackson writes.<\/p>\n Charter argued that the music companies had or should have had knowledge of their inaccurate claims but that is not enough. Also, additional evidence concerning the inaccuracies of the RIAA\u2019s anti-piracy partner Marmonitor and the problems with flawed takedown notices, in general, does not suffice.<\/p>\n \u201cThe several paragraphs discussing the 2016 Urban Study and the invalid infringement claims allegedly submitted by plaintiffs\u2019 agent MarkMonitor, say nothing about the 455 dropped works.\u201d<\/p>\n While errors are never good, the contested claims are only a small fraction of the total number of DMCA notices. That is not \u201cmaterial,\u201d the court notes. Also, Judge Jackson believes it\u2019s \u201cironic\u201d that the ISP is complaining that the number of copyright claims, for which it can be held liable, has been reduced.<\/p>\n Finally, Charter\u2019s DMCA abuse claim also fails because the court doesn\u2019t believe that the company or its subscribers suffered any damage as a result of the allegedly inaccurate notices. <\/p>\n \u201cIt appears to be undisputed in this lawsuit that although Charter has notified some of its subscribers of some of plaintiffs\u2019 claims of infringement, it has not cancelled any subscriptions or taken other actions to disable subscribers\u2019 access to Charter\u2019s service,\u201d the order reads.<\/p>\n Based on these and other arguments the court dismisses Charter\u2019s DMCA abuse counterclaim. The ISP also alleged that the \u2018false\u2019 notices violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. This claim was dismissed on similar grounds.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]he premise that plaintiffs\u2019 dropping the 455 works constituted bad faith conduct that was \u2018fraudulent, reckless, willful, knowing, and\/or intentional\u2019 does not come close to satisfying the particularity required for allegations of fraud,\u201d Judge Jackson writes. <\/p>\n The dismissal of both counterclaims is a major setback for Charter and a big win for the music companies, who face similar \u2018false\u2019 DMCA allegations from other companies. <\/p>\n The lawsuit between the ISP and the record labels is far from over, however. In his order Judge Jackson allows Charter to amend two other counterclaims. These ask for a declaratory judgment that the ISP isn\u2019t liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement due to subscribers\u2019 pirating activities.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of Judge R. Brooke Jackson\u2019s order is available here (pdf)<\/a><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nCharter Countersues Over \u2018False\u2019 DMCA Notices<\/h2>\n
Judge Sides With Music Companies<\/h2>\n
Lacking Evidence<\/h2>\n
Consumer Protection Claim Fails Too<\/h2>\n