{"id":84254,"date":"2025-07-24T09:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T09:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=84254"},"modified":"2025-07-24T09:00:31","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T09:00:31","slug":"labels-dont-want-supreme-court-review-to-delay-piracy-lawsuit-against-verizon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=84254","title":{"rendered":"Labels Don\u2019t Want Supreme Court Review to Delay Piracy Lawsuit Against Verizon"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"verizon-pause\"Last month, the Supreme Court granted<\/a> Cox Communications\u2019 petition for a writ of certiorari in a landmark copyright liability battle.<\/p>\n

The internet provider challenged the $1 billion damages award by a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, including Sony, Universal, and Warner.<\/p>\n

Cox successfully convinced the Supreme Court that the contributory infringement standards, which determine how ISPs should respond to pirating subscribers, should be reviewed. The same applies to the associated willfulness finding, which contributed to the initial billion-dollar verdict.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s review offers potential clarity for an industry grappling with complex legal issues. The outcomes of other lawsuits between ISPs and rightsholders will be directly impacted too, especially when it comes to claims for contributory infringement.<\/p>\n

Labels vs. Altice Case on Hold<\/h2>\n

A lawsuit between several major record labels and Internet provider Altice<\/a> is one of those affected. The matter was scheduled for trial in September, but both parties agreed that it would be wise to stay the proceeding until the Supreme Court issues its decision. <\/p>\n

In a joint motion, the parties informed the Texas federal court that the Cox decision will potentially change the liability standards when it comes to repeat infringers, an issue central to the case. Therefore, it\u2019s sensible to put the case on hold.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Parties agree that proceeding to trial now, before the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Cox, risks both the Parties and this Court expending significant resources to complete pre-trial proceedings and prepare for and hold a trial, only to have wasted the jury\u2019s time and have to repeat those efforts as a result of the decision in Cox,\u201d the joint motion reads. <\/p>\n

The request for a stay was granted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne last week, who put the case on hold, canceling the plans for a September trial. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Warner et al. vs. Altice<\/em> Stayed<\/center>

<\/center>
\"stayed\"<\/center><\/p>\n

Verizon Asks for a Stay<\/h2>\n

Contrary to their agreement in the Altice case, the labels are not willing to put a similar case against Verizon on hold. While many of the same companies are listed as plaintiffs, they believe that this case can continue for now, as it\u2019s nowhere near a trial. <\/p>\n

Verizon previously requested a stay pending the Cox review. While the case is in its early stages, with a motion to dismiss pending and no discovery taking place at the time, the ISP sees no reason to rush it forward and potentially \u2018waste\u2019 resources.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Cox will control this Court\u2019s decision on that issue. A stay is therefore warranted in the interest of judicial economy and will not prejudice any party,\u201d Verizon wrote.<\/p>\n

Labels Oppose More Stalling<\/h2>\n

This week, the labels objected to the request, asking a New York federal court to keep the case active. According to the music companies, several of their claims won\u2019t be affected by the Supreme Court ruling so should be allowed to move forward. <\/p>\n

The labels reiterate that Verizon received thousands of piracy notices for its customers, which it allegedly ignored. After being sued, Verizon allegedly tried to stall the litigation, including the labels\u2019 request to begin discovery. <\/p>\n

Verizon\u2019s recent request to stay the case is another attempt to delay, they say.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, Verizon seeks what would be a yearlong stay based on speculation that a Cox ruling might impact some aspects of Plaintiffs\u2019 contributory infringement claim\u2014though it will not impact their vicarious liability claim or Verizon\u2019s primary defense under the [DMCA],\u201d the labels write. <\/p>\n

\u201cThis case is already one year old and has not left the gate. Verizon has failed to carry its burden to justify further delay. The request should be denied.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Labels Oppose Stay in Verizon<\/em><\/center>

<\/center>
\"labels-oppose\"<\/center><\/p>\n

The labels\u2019 position clearly differs from that adopted in the Altice case, where they agreed to put the case on hold. In addition to the different claims at stake, this can be explained by the Verizon case being in its early stages.<\/p>\n

In the Altice lawsuit, the dispute was preparing to go to trial, while the Verizon case still has a motion to dismiss pending, as well as a discovery process, where both sides can gather further evidence. <\/p>\n

Whether the court rules in favor or against, the Supreme Court decision will ultimately affect the Verizon case too, at least when it comes to the contributory infringement claim and the issue of willfulness.<\/p>\n

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

A copy of Verizon\u2019s request to stay the case is available here (pdf)<\/a> and the opposition brief from the record labels can be found 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":"

Last month, the Supreme Court granted Cox Communications\u2019 petition for a writ of certiorari in a landmark copyright liability battle. The internet provider challenged the $1 billion damages award by a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, including Sony, Universal, and Warner. Cox successfully convinced the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":84255,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84254","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\/84254","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=84254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84254\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/84255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=84254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=84254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=84254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}