Record Labels Upset with Court Win, Claim ISP Should Pay More for User Piracy
Brief:
Record labels have won another court case against an ISP, but they are dissatisfied with the ruling, which only awarded per-album damages instead of per-song damages. This case continues to highlight the ongoing conflict between the music industry and ISPs over piracy issues.
- Record Labels Demand Higher Damages
- Grande Communications Seeks to Overturn the Ruling
- Impact on ISPs and Future Legal Precedents
Record Labels Demand Higher Damages
The big three record labels notched another court victory against a broadband provider last month, but the music publishing firms aren't happy that an appeals court only awarded per-album damages instead of damages for each song. Universal, Warner, and Sony are seeking an en banc rehearing of the copyright infringement case, claiming that Internet service provider Grande Communications should have to pay per-song damages over its failure to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. The decision to make Grande pay for each album instead of each song "threatens copyright owners' ability to obtain fair damages," said the record labels' petition filed last week.
The case is in the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled last month that Grande, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband, violated the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat infringers. Subscribers were flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads monitored by Rightscorp, a copyright-enforcement company used by the music labels.
The one good part of the ruling for Grande is that the 5th Circuit ordered a new trial on damages because it said a $46.8 million award was too high. Appeals court judges found that the district court "erred in granting JMOL [judgment as a matter of law] that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages." The damages were $33,333 per song.
Record labels want the per-album portion of the ruling reversed while leaving the rest of it intact.
Grande Communications Seeks to Overturn the Ruling
Grande also filed a petition for rehearing because it wants to escape liability, whether for each song or each album. A rehearing would be in front of all the court's judges.
"Providing Internet service is not actionable conduct," Grande argued. "The Panel's decision erroneously permits contributory liability to be based on passive, equivocal commercial activity: the provision of Internet access."
Grande cited Supreme Court decisions in MGM Studios v. Grokster and Twitter v. Taamneh. "Nothing in Grokster permits inferring culpability from a defendant's failure to stop infringement," Grande wrote. "And Twitter makes clear that providing online platforms or services for the exchange of information, even if the provider knows of misuse, is not sufficiently culpable to support secondary liability. This is because supplying the 'infrastructure' for communication in a way that is 'agnostic as to the nature of the content' is not 'active, substantial assistance' for any unlawful use."
Impact on ISPs and Future Legal Precedents
This isn't the only important case in the ongoing battle between copyright owners and broadband providers, which could have dramatic effects on Internet access for individuals accused of piracy.
ISPs, labels want the Supreme Court to weigh in
ISPs don't want to be held liable when their subscribers violate copyright law and argue that they shouldn't have to conduct mass terminations of Internet users based on mere accusations of piracy. ISPs say that copyright-infringement notices sent on behalf of record labels aren't accurate enough to justify such terminations.
Digital rights groups have supported ISPs in these cases, arguing that turning ISPs into copyright cops would be bad for society and disconnect people who were falsely accused or were just using the same Internet connection as an infringer.
The broadband and music publishing industries are waiting to learn whether the Supreme Court will take up a challenge by cable firm Cox Communications, which wants to overturn a ruling in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. In that case, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed a jury's finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement, but vacated a $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. Record labels also petitioned the Supreme Court because they want the $1 billion verdict reinstated.
Cox has said that the 4th Circuit ruling "would force ISPs to terminate Internet service to households or businesses based on unproven allegations of infringing activity, and put them in a position of having to police their networks... Terminating Internet service would not just impact the individual accused of unlawfully downloading content, it would kick an entire household off the Internet."
Four other large ISPs told the Supreme Court that the legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet." They called the copyright-infringement notices "famously flawed" and said mass terminations of Internet users who are subject to those notices "would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access."
For the full report by Arstechnica, you can read the original article here: