Appeal Court Affirms Verdict Against ISP Grande For Failing To Terminate Pirates (torrentfreak.com) 35
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 .
Re: (Score:1)
Then you've got further ripples down the line where ISP incompetence results in my Apple TV set top box being blocked from the internet due to accessing local news and weather through my local sta
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, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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:1)
What if it's not under copyright but on your list? What if someone is spoofing your IP? What if your boss tells you to plant data on some target they have a personal problem with?
Re: (Score:2)
There are known false positives out there. One person got a DMCA notice for what turned out to be natural birdsong on a video he had made outdoors. Another takedown for Usher.mp3 turned out to be a lecture by professor Usher, not the artist Usher. It was posted for students who were unable to attend in person.
As for how we got those false positives, I would have to say overzealous gross incompetence bordering on malice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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)
That's wrong, IP addresses are not equivalent to people since 2012.
ISPs know when an IP was leased to a specific subscriber, and can still claim it's a TOS violation for failing to properly secure access to your router if you have no idea* who was using your subscription to unlawfully distribute copyrighted content. So, even if the copyright lawyers aren't likely to prevail in a lawsuit directly against you, you can still end up getting the banhammer from your ISP.
* But let's be honest, most modern WiFi routers default to some sort of secure state right out of the box. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Someone at your IP was sharing copyrighted content, and you got nabbed. It happens. Stop breaking the law.
A little birdie told me you can also just use a Seedbox or VPN so the nastygrams never make it to your ISP.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how efficient is capitalism?
Well, Adams explained it with his 'invisible hand' metaphor: Markets are efficient because businesses have to compete, and prove their goodwill. Anything that reduces competition; such as perpetual copyright, nearly everything containing intellectual property, patent squatting/trolling, reduces efficiency. Anything allowing businesses to control consumption (the market) and suppress dissent/competition, reduces efficiency.
Capitalism provides efficiency to supply: With money motivating people to supply
Re: US slowly morphing into klelpto-plutocracy lik (Score:2)
Efficiency in capitalism is measured by its supply chains. It's very good and efficient at the thing it's meant to do: ensuring producers produce enough stuff, distributors get it to where it needs to be, and retailers make it available to consumers. That's it. If you have further expectations, it may or may not be good at delivering on those.
Pitchforks are useless anymore (Score:2)
What I'm saying is the time to stop your country from becoming a kleptocracy is before it becomes one. Afterwards it's too late
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You ever actually looked at the number of seeds for any sort of pirated content that isn't particularly new? Surprisingly few people bother to pirate content these days, and most are just fine with watching/listening to something else if their first choice isn't available on a paid service.
There's not going to be any raising of torches and pitchforks so long as people can still watch whatever is trending on Netflix.
America is an Oligarchy (Score:2)
source [washingtontimes.com].
You may note that this is an old article. And it discusses even older material. America has been ruled by the wealthy elite for quite a long time. And they don't even hide it. They don't have to. Most of us just ignore them and continue to believe that we have any political power at all.
It's a farce.
The only silver lining here is that they need there to be a certain degree of economic health and stability in order to retain their wealth. If the economy falls apart then they fall apart with it.
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Somehow, this morphs into private corporation policing of citizens and the declaration of guilty until proven innocent in a court of law via legalizing the act of doing an end run around the courts and justice system.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes (Score:3)
It's the 5th circuit (Score:1)
The 5th circuit has been targeted for decades for court packing. Remember those judges get appointed by the politicians we elect and they get appointed for life.
Elections have consequences
And (Score:2)
Sadly, there was no one in the court room with an IQ over 25.