Appeal Court Affirms Verdict Against ISP Grande For Failing To Terminate Pirates (torrentfreak.com) 15
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a copyright infringement verdict against Internet provider Grande, which failed to take action against allegedly pirating subscribers. The jury's $47 million damages award in favor of the major music label plaintiffs is vacated. According to the Court (PDF), individual tracks that are part of an album, should not be counted as separate works. TorrentFreak reports: After hearing both sides, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict yesterday. Grande's arguments, suggesting that the district court mistakenly upheld the verdict earlier, were rejected. "The district court did not err in upholding the jury's unanimous liability verdict because Plaintiffs satisfied each element legally and factually," the decision reads. "The court correctly interpreted the law and instructed the jury on the relevant legal standards in light of the factual issues disputed by the parties, and Plaintiffs introduced ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in Plaintiffs' favor." [...]
In addition to the material contribution challenge, Grande and its supporters also pointed out that terminating Internet access isn't a "simple measure," as the jury concluded. Instead, it is drastic and overbroad, which could also impact innocent subscribers. The Court of Appeals rejects this reasoning. Instead, it states that the jury could and did conclude that terminations are a simple measure. There is no evidence to reach a different conclusion. All in all, the Court sees no reason to reverse the jury's verdict that Grande is liable for contributory infringement. This means that the jury verdict is affirmed.
In addition to the material contribution challenge, Grande and its supporters also pointed out that terminating Internet access isn't a "simple measure," as the jury concluded. Instead, it is drastic and overbroad, which could also impact innocent subscribers. The Court of Appeals rejects this reasoning. Instead, it states that the jury could and did conclude that terminations are a simple measure. There is no evidence to reach a different conclusion. All in all, the Court sees no reason to reverse the jury's verdict that Grande is liable for contributory infringement. This means that the jury verdict is affirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't write a check that large.
Re: (Score:2)
That is also where this is going, to remove the ISP/website protections that do not hold these entities responsible for what the people who use their platform post.
If someone thought first amendment was under attack before... hold on to your ~~butts~~ gluteus maximus .
lets all go the music label office and upload from (Score:3)
lets all go the music label office and upload from there free wifi
US slowly morphing into klelpto-plutocracy like RU (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And trust me, you'd prefer it not go to a court of law, because right now you're just getting slapped, and nothing will come from it. 14 days, and you'll have your internet back (assuming you ignored the 3 warnings).
If it goes to court, they're going to make me produce evidence that you've been doing it for years, and you're now bankrupt. Forever.
Someone at your IP was sharing copyrighted content, and you got nabbed. It happens. Stop breaking the law.
I'm not spea
Re: (Score:1)
How many false positives that you may never even know about?
Re: (Score:2)
Now- I'll grant you, the matching is based on some flimsy scaffolding, but the failure modes are absurd.
"I swear- that file I was sharing that was listed on that tracker that is literally full of pirated content as 'Deadpool 3.mkv' was actually some indie music!
Re: (Score:3)
"Someone at your IP was sharing copyrighted content, and you got nabbed. It happens. Stop breaking the law."
That's wrong, IP addresses are not equivalent to people since 2012. This decision doesn't change that fact
https://www.computerworld.com/... [computerworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Question in my head is what is the end game?
People will only tolerate kleptocracy before reaching for their pitchforks or rulings start to cut into the bottom line of other billionaires, which will result in even more spagetti law.
It will be a strange world when the greatest communication device dies on the vine from being rendered unusable by law.
Re: (Score:1)
Just how efficient is capitalism? Is capital efficiency different from engineering efficiency, and have economists confused us by implying they are synonymous? What if we gave engineers a strong basic income and let them do efficiency their way (or of course they could choose business as usual, which would not go away, if they are greedy) instead of having to defer to what the finance guys think is physically efficient?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa whoa whoa... not argiung for or against any -ism, more a corruption of law and downstream effects should ISPs move to walled-gardens to avoid liability from copyright holders.
But as far as markets are concerned, they are horribly inefficent, but tend towards the most innovation. The question is a balance of property rights, and specificlly corporate rights.
Ah, Texas, the land of the jailed (Score:2)
Alleged? (Score:2)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a copyright infringement verdict against Internet provider Grande, which failed to take action against allegedly pirating subscribers.
Alleged does not mean proven or convicted. Why are they taking action against somebody *before* that person has been proven to be guilty?