{"id":78069,"date":"2024-07-15T09:01:29","date_gmt":"2024-07-15T09:01:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=78069"},"modified":"2024-07-15T09:01:29","modified_gmt":"2024-07-15T09:01:29","slug":"riaa-sues-verizon-after-isp-buried-head-in-sand-over-subscribers-piracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=78069","title":{"rendered":"RIAA Sues Verizon After ISP \u201cBuried Head in Sand\u201d Over Subscribers\u2019 Piracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"riaa\"<\/a>At a time when many pirate sites seem increasingly elusive, oftentimes almost transient as domains, identities, and branding, come and go, static enforcement targets are in limited supply.<\/p>\n

The same can\u2019t be said for internet service providers and over the past few years, several have paid a very steep price. Not for engaging in piracy per se<\/em>, but for not responding aggressively enough against subscribers mostly accused of repeatedly pirating movies and music.<\/p>\n

Just before the weekend, dozens of record labels including UMG, Warner, and Sony, filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon at a New York federal court. In common with previous lawsuits that accused rivals of similar inaction, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless), stand accused of assisting subscribers to download and share pirated music, by not doing enough to stop them.<\/p>\n

Can You Hear Me Now?<\/h2>\n

The labels\u2019 complaint introduces Verizon as one of the largest ISPs in the country, one that \u201cknowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates.\u201d <\/p>\n

Knowledge of infringement, the labels say, was established at Verizon over a period of several years during which it received \u201chundreds of thousands\u201d of copyright notices, referencing instances of infringement allegedly carried out by its subscribers. The complaint cites Verizon subscribers\u2019 persistent use of BitTorrent networks to download and share pirated music, with Verizon allegedly failing to curtail their activity.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile Verizon is famous for its \u2018Can you hear me now?\u2019 advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners. Instead of taking action in response to those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs\u2019 notices and buried its head in the sand,\u201d the labels write.<\/p>\n

\u201cUndeterred, infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs\u2019 notices continued to use Verizon\u2019s services to infringe Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrights with impunity. Meanwhile, Verizon continued to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could continue to collect millions of dollars from them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Through this lawsuit, which references piracy of songs recorded by artists including The Rolling Stones, Ariana Grande, Bob Dylan, Bruno Mars, Elvis Presley, Dua Lipa, Drake, and others, the labels suggest that Verizon will have no choice but to hear them now.<\/p>\n

\u201cScope of Repeat Infringement on Verizon\u2019s Network is Staggering\u201d<\/h2>\n

The labels claim that since early 2020, their representatives have sent more than 340,000 infringement notices to Verizon. These notifications \u201cclearly and unambiguously\u201d advised the ISP of its subscribers\u2019 \u201cblatant and systematic use of Verizon\u2019s Internet service\u201d to download, copy, and share the plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted sound recordings via BitTorrent networks.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe scope of repeat infringement on Verizon\u2019s network is staggering. Thousands of Verizon subscribers were the subject of 20 or more notices from Plaintiffs, and more than 500 subscribers were the subject of 100 or more notices,\u201d the complaint claims.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne particularly egregious Verizon subscriber was single-handedly the subject of 4,450 infringement notices from Plaintiffs alone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Egregious infringers<\/em>\"verizon<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs state that Verizon acknowledged receipt of the notices, sent by third party vendor OpSec Online LLC, but in terms of response, chose to ignore them, \u201cwillfully blinding itself to that information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint makes it clear that if Verizon wanted to avoid being held liable for subscribers\u2019 violations, termination of repeat infringers\u2019 accounts or similar meaningful action would\u2019ve been appropriate steps to take. Instead, it\u2019s alleged that Verizon \u201croutinely thumbed its nose\u201d in response to complaints, while continuing to provide service to subscribers known to be serial infringers.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn reality, Verizon operated its service as an attractive tool and safe haven for infringement,\u201d the plaintiffs add, noting that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from subscribers\u2019 repeated infringements, by failing to take action as part of an effective<\/em> repeat infringer program.<\/p>\n

Repeat Infringer Program is Ineffective<\/h2>\n

The plaintiffs note that Verizon\u2019s published \u201cCopyright Infringement\/Repeat Infringer Policy\u201d prohibits subscribers from using the ISP\u2019s systems or servers in a manner that infringes third party intellectual property rights. The policy further states that under Section 512 of the DMCA, Verizon terminates repeat infringers in \u201cappropriate circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of the problems, the labels claim, is that Verizon actively attempts to thwart copyright holders\u2019 efforts to inform the ISP of infringement. <\/p>\n

The complaint describes Verizon\u2019s Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program<\/em> as having \u201conerous conditions\u201d that require participants to pay burdensome fees for automated processes such as IP address lookups and notice forwarding. Rightsholders are further required to waive their copyright claims, indemnify Verizon, while keeping the terms of the program confidential, the labels say.<\/p>\n

Rightsholders who prefer not to utilize this program are required to send notices via email. The labels claim these notices aren\u2019t reviewed, processed, forwarded to subscribers, or even tracked to ensure that repeat infringers are handled in line with Verizon policy. <\/p>\n

Given that Verizon\u2019s response to infringement notices falls short of what the labels consider to be the threshold for avoiding liability, they predict that the consequences of the ISP\u2019s \u201csupport of and profit from infringement are obvious and stark.\u201d<\/p>\n

Claims For Contributory and Vicarious copyright Infringement<\/h2>\n

Attached to the complaint, Exhibit A contains a non-exhaustive list of the plaintiffs\u2019 copyright works allegedly infringed by Verizon\u2019s subscribers. The document is over 400 pages long, with each track listed representing potential liability for Verizon as a willful, intentional, and purposeful contributory infringer, the complaint notes.<\/p>\n

This inevitably leads to claims based on maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed on Count I (contributory infringement). The statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringed work is also applied to Count II (vicarious infringement), based on the labels\u2019 claim that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringements of its subscribers.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"verizon<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n

The labels\u2019 complaint, filed at a New York federal court last Friday, can be found here<\/a> (pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At a time when many pirate sites seem increasingly elusive, oftentimes almost transient as domains, identities, and branding, come and go, static enforcement targets are in limited supply. The same can\u2019t be said for internet service providers and over the past few years, several have paid a very steep price. Not for engaging in piracy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":78070,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=78069"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78069\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/78070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=78069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=78069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=78069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}