{"id":91045,"date":"2025-05-10T21:28:10","date_gmt":"2025-05-10T21:28:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/91045\/"},"modified":"2025-05-10T21:28:10","modified_gmt":"2025-05-10T21:28:10","slug":"the-argument-for-cutting-off-internet-for-repeated-piracy-sony-music-more-say-the-laws-clear-no-supreme-court-intervention-necessary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/91045\/","title":{"rendered":"The Argument for Cutting Off Internet for Repeated Piracy: Sony Music & More Say the Law\u2019s Clear, No Supreme Court Intervention Necessary"},"content":{"rendered":"

Several music labels under Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony<\/a> Group have asked the Supreme Court to deny a petition from major internet service provider (ISP) Grande Communications Networks, which seeks the Court\u2019s intervention after it was ordered to pay $46.8 million in damages for contributory copyright infringement for not terminating customers who repeatedly engaged in copyright infringement related to music downloads.<\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/strong>
Bandai Namco Entertainment America Sued For Allegedly Exposing Customer Viewing & Buying Habits Without Consent, Follows Dismissed Case Against Ubisoft<\/a><\/p>\n

\"sony<\/a><\/p>\n

The labels first brought the lawsuit against Grande in 2017. Per revealed emails, Grande was frequently informed of subscribers who were regularly pirating content, and, despite having previously done so, adopted a new policy of never terminating subscribers for copyright infringement. The jury for the case sided with the music labels, and Grande appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in March 2023, where it again lost. Its bid to have the entire appeals court hear the case (en banc rehearing) was also denied.<\/p>\n

On March 6, 2025, Grande asked for the Supreme Court to weigh in, where it pleaded an impracticality, unfairness, and legal inconsistency with being held liable for damages and terminating subscribers\u2019 internet connections for repeated copyright infringement. The music labels responded on May 9, 2025, taking on several of Grande\u2019s arguments.<\/p>\n

Grande accuses the labels of demanding that it terminate customer accounts after being made aware that a customer has offended twice, making them a repeat infringer, and characterizes this as terminating \u201cconnections prematurely in response to two unsubstantiated allegations of infringement\u201d and a \u201cstaggering penalty for a $2 harm.\u201d The labels say that they\u2019re not interested in the odd infringement that slips through the cracks, but rampant infringement that ISPs like Grande were found to have ignored by not having a policy to prevent it. It gave examples of 40 customers that surpassed 1,000 infringements and one that passed 14,000.<\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/strong>
Ajitun: Major Korean Webtoon Pirate Loses Another Lifeline As 2-Year Prison Sentence Upheld by Appeals Court<\/a>\"supreme<\/a><\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court has opined on contributory copyright infringement cases before, none have specifically related to an ISP\u2019s provision of internet services. The labels say this isn\u2019t necessary, as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has long existed and protects ISPs from liability, assuming they have \u201cadopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider\u2019s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider\u2019s system or network who are repeat infringers.\u201d The labels also say the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t need to weigh in because of support from appeals courts in this case and other similar cases of ISPs Cox Communications and AT&T Mobility.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most notably, the labels (plus the Fifth Circuit court) disagree with Grande on the interpretation of a previous Supreme Court opinion involving contributory copyright infringement: MGM vs. Grokster. It found that a service provider was not necessarily liable for copyright infringement just because its service could be used for copyright infringement, if it also had substantial other non-infringing uses. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court added that a service provider\u2019s failure to develop any mechanisms to stop infringing activity could act as additional evidence of wrongdoing, given some other evidence.<\/p>\n

But, in isolation, a \u201ccourt would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses (Justice Souter<\/a>),\u201d which Grande relied on. The labels cite multiple prior decisions at district and appeal levels that argue that service providers can be presumed to have the intent to cause and contribute to copyright infringement upon learning that specific customers are using their services for that purpose.<\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/strong>
Major Webtoon Website Reaper Scans Shuts Down After Kakao Entertainment Cease & Desist<\/a><\/p>\n

The labels add that if the Supreme Court nonetheless considers this case, it should also address their belief that Grande is also liable for vicarious copyright infringement, with which the district court sided with Grande in this situation. Cornell<\/a> defines vicarious infringement is \u201ccommitted by another person if they had the authority and ability to control the infringing activities, and also had a direct financial interest in those activities.\u201d<\/p>\n

You can check out some of Grande\u2019s arguments here<\/a>, where it makes arguments for the impracticality and safety concerns of terminating an internet connection, including implications for medical devices, children\u2019s school learning, if it was actually via hackers, and more. Grande\u2019s full petition to the Supreme Court is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Interesting (pointed) quotes from the labels include \u201cIf Grande thinks the [DMCA] 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 and \u201cTo the extent Grande thinks that ISPs need more protection than Congress already provided, it should direct its efforts to the other side of First Street.\u201d Congress and the Supreme Court are both on First Street.<\/p>\n

Source: Supreme Court<\/a>
Featured image \u00a9 Koyoharu Gotouge \/ SHUEISHA \/ Aniplex \/ ufotable<\/p>\n

ALSO READ:<\/strong>
Popular Game Developer Square Enix Files Lawsuit Over Front Mission Copyright Infringement<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Several music labels under Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Group have asked the Supreme Court…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":91046,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3161],"tags":[3082,341,53,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-91045","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-internet","8":"tag-internet","9":"tag-sony","10":"tag-technology","11":"tag-uk","12":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114485664580074218","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91045\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/91046"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}