Jump to content

Music Companies Sue ISP Bright House for Failing to Disconnect Pirates


The AchieVer

Recommended Posts

The AchieVer

Music Companies Sue ISP Bright House for Failing to Disconnect Pirates

 

A group of major music companies including Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros, has sued Internet provider Bright House Networks for failing to disconnect repeat infringers. The ISP, which was acquired by Charter three years ago, knowingly profited from the massive volumes of copyright infringement committed by its users, the companies state. With thousands of tracks as evidence, the potential damages exceed a billion dollars.

 

brighthouse.jpg

 

For roughly two decades, copyright holders have been sending takedown notices to ISPs to alert them that their subscribers are sharing copyrighted material.

 

Under US law, providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances” and increasingly they are being held to this standard.

 

Several major music industry companies including Artista Records, Capitol Records, Polygram Publishing, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Bros Records, have filed lawsuits against a variety of Internet providers.

With help from the RIAA, the companies targeted Cox Communications and Grande Communications, hoping to recoup damages for their role in the pirating activities of their subscribers.

The overall theme of these lawsuits is the same. The music companies accuse the ISPs of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers. This is also made clear in a new complaint that was just filed against Bright House Networks at a federal court in Florida.

 

A few years ago Bright House was the sixth largest ISP in the US. In 2016, the company was acquired by Charter, and its customers were subsequently moved to the Spectrum brand. However, that hasn’t stopped the music companies from suing the company over its past practices.

In the complaint, the music companies argue that the ISP knowingly contributed to and profited from the copyright infringing actions of its subscribers. As such, the company should be held liable for this activity, they state.

 

“Indeed, for years, Bright House deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others’ copyrights, including Plaintiffs’ copyrights—even after Bright House became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement.

“Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Bright House did nothing, choosing to prioritize its own profits over its legal obligations,” the complaint adds.

 

The lawsuit covers Bright House’s activities between 2013 and 2016, before the Charter acquisition. The music companies write that, despite sending more than a hundred thousand infringement notices, the ISP knowingly allowed specifically identified repeat infringers to keep using its service. 

“In reality, Bright House operated its service as an attractive tool and safe haven for infringement,” the complaint reads.

 

The more than 60 music publisher plaintiffs list several examples of Bright House customers who were allowed to continue despite dozens, sometimes even hundreds of copyright infringement notices.

brightip.png
Some examples

“During an 827-day period, Bright House subscriber with IP address 75.114.183.231 was identified in 340 infringement notices, sent on at least 232 separate days,” the complaint reads. 

 

“These examples and countless others amply illustrate that, rather than terminating repeat infringers—and losing subscription revenues—Bright House simply looked the other way.”

 

The allegations are very similar to the other “repeat infringer” lawsuits we have seen in the past. As in the other cases, the ISP is accused of both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. 

The music companies claim substantial losses for which they want to be compensated. They request actual damages or statutory damages of $150,000 per work. With more than 7,000 tracks as evidence, a list that may grow even longer, the potential damages are over $1 billion. 

 

 

 

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 2
  • Views 380
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Last time I was in Daytona Beach, the hotels had Bright House as their internet provider so it makes sense that an IP could have a large number of infringements since everyone is using it to download whatever they want.  Some of the hotels even had employees watching for people pulling in to the parking lots to connect to their wifi, usually for illegal activity of one type or another.   Best place to catch pedophiles is in McDonald's (or other restaurant) parking lots that offer free wifi.  These public access wifi spots have to be a sore spot for the ISPs.  If you want to do something illegal, spoof your MAC, then connect and do what you want since you can't be traced.  I lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


All this does is make vpns mandatory  so you  can protect your isp  from  BitTorrent trolls  and to protect yourself from  being disconnected  because of  BitTorrent  trolls .  If you are dumb enough to use p2p without a  vpn and kill switch in the USA you derisive getting  disconnected. because ISPs have to protect themselves or be sued .I download music  from p2p when ever i want  but not from BitTorrent but another p2p protocol  with a vpn and a kill switch and  i  never had no trouble . Also in 2019 they are many other ways to get music without messing with p2p.  I don't even have a  BitTorrent client installed any more . I use   torrent in  the cloud  to direct download link .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...