{"id":83070,"date":"2025-05-13T09:00:54","date_gmt":"2025-05-13T09:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=83070"},"modified":"2025-05-13T09:00:54","modified_gmt":"2025-05-13T09:00:54","slug":"never-terminate-policy-music-labels-slam-grandes-supreme-court-piracy-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=83070","title":{"rendered":"\u201cNever Terminate\u201d Policy: Music Labels Slam Grande\u2019s Supreme Court Piracy Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"cassetteLate 2022, several of the world\u2019s largest music companies including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit<\/a> against Internet provider Grande Communications.<\/p>\n

The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers.<\/p>\n

A Texas federal jury found Grande guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The copyright infringement verdict was confirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but the lower court\u2019s decision on how damages should be calculated was overturned. A new trial will determine the appropriate amount but in the meantime, Grande continues to protest the liability ruling. <\/p>\n

Grande Petitions Supreme Court<\/h2>\n

Earlier this year, Grande asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Internet provider argued that current law lacks clear standards for handling copyright infringement notices or terminating subscriber accounts. <\/p>\n

The petition asked the Supreme Court to answer two key questions, which Grande phrased as follows: <\/p>\n

\u201cWhether an ISP is liable for contributory copyright infringement by (i) providing content-neutral internet access to the general public and (ii) failing to terminate that access after receiving two third-party notices alleging someone at a customer\u2019s IP address has infringed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Assuming that third-party notices are valid, other questions also remain unanswered. For example, is it fair to disconnect subscribers from vital services? How many notices should trigger a disconnection when ISPs receive millions of them? And should subscribers be protected in any way?<\/p>\n

Grande essentially argues that the DMCA, as it\u2019s written, is too ambiguous to handle the present repeat infringer conundrum. Ideally, the law should be clarified but for now it hopes that the court can provide additional clarity. <\/p>\n

Music Companies: Rampant Infringement<\/h2>\n

Last week, the music companies responded to Grande\u2019s argument. In an opposition brief, they note that the questions posed by the ISP are \u201cutterly divorced from reality\u201d and not worth the Court\u2019s attention. <\/p>\n

The brief counters the ISP\u2019s focus on subscribers for which it received two<\/em> copyright infringement notices, noting that the ISP had no intention of disconnecting any subscribers, no matter how many notices they received. <\/p>\n

The music companies contend that Grande\u2019s situation is not a symptom of confusing laws, but a consequence of its own \u201cegregious\u201d policies. <\/p>\n

\u201cIn truth, Grande had a policy to never terminate service to a customer for engaging in copyright infringement,\u201d the music companies write. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe trial record demonstrated that Grande knew that dozens of its users infringed more than 1,000 times\u2014and one infringed nearly 14,000 times\u2014 annually, yet Grande did nothing in response.\u201d <\/p>\n

The music companies stress that Grande had no problem terminating subscribers who didn\u2019t pay their bills. However, when rightsholders repeatedly complained about pirating subscribers, it took no action. <\/p>\n

The DMCA clearly states that ISPs must adopt and implement a repeat infringer policy to benefit from safe harbor protection. However, according to the music companies, Grande\u2019s policy was to keep servicing these subscribers instead.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court or Congress?<\/h2>\n

All in all, the plaintiffs see no reason for the Supreme Court to take on this case. If Grande believes that the DMCA safe harbor definitions should be changed, it should petition lawmakers, the music companies add.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf Grande thinks the safe harbor should be radically expanded to allow the kind of shocking disregard for copyrights it displayed, it should take that up with Congress, not this Court.\u201d<\/p>\n

After hearing the positions of both sides, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will take on this case or not. <\/p>\n

Interestingly, this is not the only repeat infringer case currently under review. Last year, Cox Communications filed a similar petition<\/a>, warning that the current situation could have devastating consequences for the ISP industry and the public.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court previously signaled interest in the issue. While it\u2019s yet to accept the petition, the Court requested the U.S. Solicitor General\u2019s views, to hear what the Government thinks about the matter.<\/p>\n

\u2014<\/em><\/p>\n

A copy of the music companies\u2019 opposition brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court is available here (pdf)<\/a><\/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":"

Late 2022, several of the world\u2019s largest music companies including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications. The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers. A Texas federal jury found […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":83071,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83070","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\/83070","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=83070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83070\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/83071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=83070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=83070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=83070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}