{"id":84103,"date":"2025-07-15T09:01:04","date_gmt":"2025-07-15T09:01:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=84103"},"modified":"2025-07-15T09:01:04","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T09:01:04","slug":"record-labels-a-safe-haven-for-pirates-disqualifies-isp-from-dmca-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=84103","title":{"rendered":"Record Labels: A \u201cSafe Haven for Pirates\u201d Disqualifies ISP from DMCA Protection"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"pirate-flag\"In late 2023, a group of nearly 50 music labels, including Warner Records and Sony Music, filed a \u2018mass-infringement\u2019 lawsuit<\/a> against Altice. <\/p>\n

These music companies, all members of the RIAA, alleged that the ISP failed to take action against repeat infringers on the \u201cOptimum\u201d network, making it potentially liable for copyright infringement.<\/p>\n

\u201cDespite Altice\u2019s stated policies and despite receiving tens of thousands of infringement notices concerning Plaintiffs\u2019 works [\u2026] Altice knowingly permitted repeat infringers to continue to use its services to infringe,\u201d the complaint read.<\/p>\n

Labels Seek Summary Judgment<\/h2>\n

Both parties have gathered evidence to support their case and last week the music labels filed a motion for summary judgment. The labels ask the court to rule that Altice is not entitled to a safe harbor defense under the DMCA. <\/p>\n

Safe harbor protection is important for ISPs, as it provides them with immunity from monetary damages related to subscribers\u2019 piracy activities carried out through their services.<\/p>\n

To enjoy safe harbor protection, U.S. law requires ISPs to \u201cadopt and reasonably implement\u201d a repeat infringer policy that provides for subscriber account terminations \u201cin appropriate circumstances.\u201d The details of this requirement are not spelled out, but the labels argue that Altice\u2019s interpretation falls severely short. <\/p>\n

\u2018A Safe Haven for Pirates\u2019<\/h2>\n

Last week\u2019s filing by the labels is heavily redacted, which makes it difficult to report on in detail. However, it is clear that the music companies see Altice\u2019s repeat infringer policy as highly ineffective, or even counterproductive. <\/p>\n

\u201cFirst and foremost, the design and implementation of Altice\u2019s policy are the antithesis of reasonable, making a farce of the DMCA\u2019s repeat infringer termination policy requirement,\u201d the labels write. <\/p>\n

The details explaining how and why Altice\u2019s implementation of the repeat infringer policy was lacking are largely blacked out, as shown below.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Heavily redacted<\/em><\/center>
\"redacted\"<\/center><\/p>\n

The implementation of this policy wasn\u2019t reasonable either, the labels argue. They allege that subscriber accounts were not terminated resulting in a permanent loss of internet access, but were suspended and eventually reactivated. <\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t square with the idea of a reasonably implemented repeat infringer policy, the labels argue. Instead, they counter that Altice offered a safe haven for pirates. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe result of Altice\u2019s actions, both by design and effect, was to provide its users with a safe haven to infringe,\u201d the labels write. <\/p>\n

\u201cUltimately, [a]n ISP cannot claim the protections of the DMCA safe harbor provisions merely by terminating customers as a symbolic gesture before indiscriminately reactivating them within a short timeframe.\u201d <\/p>\n

Reactivations & Commercial Subscribers?<\/h2>\n

The motion insists that these arguments are sufficient to rule that Altice is ineligible for safe harbor protection. If the court disagrees, the labels mention specific circumstances for which this would certainly be the case. <\/p>\n

The two categories are redacted in the motion, but, based on the arguments and citations, we can speculate that commercial subscribers and reactivated subscribers are likely candidates. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u2588\u2588\u2588\u2588 and \u2588\u2588\u2588\u2588<\/em><\/center>
\"reda\"<\/p>\n

The motion notes that commercial subscribers represented roughly 7.5-8% of the Altice subscriber base between 2020 and 2023. For these subscribers, which include third-party businesses, Altice purportedly had no repeat infringer policy. <\/p>\n

In a similar vein, the unredacted context suggests that Altice should not be entitled to rely on a safe harbor defense for customers who continued to infringe after their accounts were terminated and then reactivated. <\/p>\n

Clarity from the Supreme Court?<\/h2>\n

In addition to this motion for summary judgment, the labels also moved for summary judgment on their ownership of the works in suit. This appears to be a response to a completely sealed motion filed by Altice which concerned the number of statutory damages awards the labels are eligible for. <\/p>\n

Without further details, it is nearly impossible to accurately report on these filings, but we expect that the eventual court order will fill in many of the blanks. <\/p>\n

Looking more broadly, there\u2019s also a forthcoming Supreme Court matter that will have repercussions for this case. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted<\/a> Cox\u2019s appeal in a similar subscriber liability case, which is expected to provide more clarity on ISPs\u2019 legal obligations regarding repeat infringer policies. <\/p>\n

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

A copy of the music labels\u2019 heavily redacted motion for summary judgment on Altice\u2019s safe harbor defense, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is available here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Shortly after the motion was filed, several replies also appeared in the docket, but these are all sealed and inaccessible.<\/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":"

In late 2023, a group of nearly 50 music labels, including Warner Records and Sony Music, filed a \u2018mass-infringement\u2019 lawsuit against Altice. These music companies, all members of the RIAA, alleged that the ISP failed to take action against repeat infringers on the \u201cOptimum\u201d network, making it potentially liable for copyright infringement. \u201cDespite Altice\u2019s stated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":84104,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84103","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\/84103","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=84103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84103\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/84104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=84103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=84103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=84103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}