The U.S. Supreme Court should resolve circuit court confusion about how contributory liability applies to the internet "before it is too late," petitioner Cox Communications said in a reply brief Monday (docket 24-171). Cox is seeking SCOTUS review of a 4th U.S. Circuit decision upholding a jury's $1 billion verdict of willful contributor copyright infringement against Cox for piracy by some of its internet subscribers (see 2408160034). In its reply brief, Cox also urged SCOTUS to rule that internet service providers "are not required to police everything that happens online." Cox said the music label respondents don't deny there are circuit splits. It disputed the appellant music labels' argument of hypocrisy. Cox acknowledged it stops providing services for nonpayment, but that "does not justify forcing every ISP to conduct mass internet evictions for infractions worth, on average, $1 each." The music labels are petitioners and Cox the appellant in a related cert petition. It concerns a circuit court split over how a defendant must benefit from direct copyright infringement to be vicariously liable (docket 24-181) (see [Ref:2409170001).

In its legal fight with Cox Communications, the music industry is trying to make the carrier liable for anything its internet customers do online because it has a financial interest in offering the service to subscribers, Cox told the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. In a docket 24-181 opposition brief, Cox urged SCOTUS to reject the music industry petitioners' cert petition regarding a circuit court split over how a defendant must benefit from direct copyright infringement to be vicariously liable (see 2409170001). There is no circuit split and the case itself is a poor vehicle for the labels' proposed rule because ISPs don't have the right or ability to supervise what their customers do online, Cox said. The docket proceeding, and an accompanying cert petition Cox brought in a separate docket proceeding, stem from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' affirmation of a jury's finding of Cox's willful contributory copyright infringement (see 2402210027).

Virtual Systems (VS) provides the servers and networks that multiple video pirate streaming sites employ, EchoStar's Dish Network said in a federal complaint last week against the Ukrainian company and CEO Vyacheslav Smyrnov. Dish told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (docket 2:24-cv-01683) that it had asked VS -- which operates a data center and servers in the Seattle area -- on "hundreds of occasions" to stop copyright infringement of nearly two dozen international channels for which Dish owns exclusive broadcast rights in the U.S. The plaintiff said VS advertises that its policy is to not react to Digital Millennium Copyright Act take-down notices "unless the situation conditions force us to." As such, it didn't respond to Dish's infringement notices. Dish said VS was materially contributing to and inducing copyright infringement. It asked for a permanent injunction and damages of $150,000 for each work infringed. VS didn't comment Friday.

Neither of the issues Cox Communications wants to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court -- the right standard for material contribution to copyright infringement and the willfulness standard for secondary liability -- "is worthy" of SCOTUS consideration, Sony told the high court Wednesday. In a docket 24-171 opposition to Cox's cert petition (see 2408160034), Sony said Cox's appeal of a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a finding of willful contributory copyright infringement against Cox for the piracy of some of its internet customers makes "contrived [and] disingenuous" arguments about the 4th forcing it to kick masses of subscribers off the internet. "Cox has no problem severing the 'internet lifeline for tens of thousands of homes and businesses'" when it comes to subscribers not paying their bills, it said. It urged rejection of the cert petition. Multiple internet service providers have backed Cox's cert petition (see 2409170001).

Altice's objection against moving a music piracy lawsuit against it from a Texas federal court to one in New York (see 2410040004) should be denied, record label and music publisher plaintiffs told the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576). The plaintiffs said Altice hasn't identified any clear error in U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne's ruling that would justify its objection.

Altice is asking a U.S. District Court in Texas to reconsider a U.S. Magistrate Judge's decision not to move litigation against Altice to a federal court in New York. In a docket 2:23-cv-00576 objection last week, Altice told the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the balance of factors weigh against transferring the 2023 suit from record labels and music publishers alleging contributory copyright infringement (see 2312080050). The Magistrate Judge should have ended the court's analysis by recognizing that the bulk of relevant witnesses are in New York, and that moving proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York would be most convenient to them, Altice said.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' affirmation of a jury's finding of willful contributory copyright infringement by Cox Communications (see 2402210027) "imperils the future of the internet," ISP providers told the U.S. Supreme Court in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-171). ISPs Altice, Frontier, Lumen and Verizon -- supporting Cox's cert petition filed last month (see 2408160034) -- said the 4th Circuit decision exposes ISPs "to massive liability if they do not carry out mass internet evictions." They said such overly broad terminations based on allegations of copyright infringement "can be dangerous," as they can affect the subscriber's family, business or community. The automated processes copyright holders use to flag copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks are well known to be flawed, they said. The ISPs said copyright owners can use evidence of online infringement to serve subpoenas that get them the identity of the ISP customer whose internet access was used for infringement, and then they can pursue direct actions against those pirates. Music labels Sony Music and others, the respondents in the Cox cert petition, filed their own cert petition in August asking SCOTUS to settle the circuit court split over how a defendant must benefit from direct infringement in order to be vicariously liable. The 4th has held that liability happens when the defendant expects commercial gain from the act of infringement itself, while the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 9th circuits have held that liability comes when the defendant expects commercial gain from the enterprise in which the infringement occurs, the labels said (docket 24-181). Lower courts have long understood that the Copyright Act allows copyright owners to pursue claims for vicarious liability where the defendant expects to profit from the broader operation in which infringement occurs, they said. But while a jury found that Cox had vicariously infringed, the 4th Circuit reversed the vicarious-liability finding, ruling that the profit requirement demands proof that the defendant profits directly from the acts of infringement for which it is being held accountable, they said.

The legal fight between an array of high-profile comedians and Pandora over its streaming their comedy routines illustrates how emerging technologies and distribution methods are testing the traditional boundaries of copyright law, Sheppard Mullins entertainment lawyers Alexis Robinson and Samuel Cohen blogged Monday. The case hinges on whether licenses for sound records of comedy routines also cover the underlying content -- the jokes themselves, they said. The outcome could be precedent-setting for how streaming platforms license nonmusical content, "potentially leading to broader industry-wide changes." A victory for the comics might mean streaming platforms start negotiating more comprehensive licensing agreements for an array of spoken-word content like podcasts and audiobooks, they said. The lawsuit, Yellow Rose Productions v. Pandora Media, includes George Lopez and Robin Williams' estate, said the blog.

The anti-piracy coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) and the Hanoi, Vietnam, police took down the world's largest pirate streaming operation, which included popular site Fmovies as well as others, ACE said. Fmovies' takedown "is a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe,” ACE Chairman and Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin said. The pirating operation, ACE said, launched in 2016 and included associate sites bflixz, flixtorz, movies7, myflixer and aniwave. Combined, the pirate sites saw more than 6.7 billion visits between January 2023 and June 2024. ACE said Vidsrc.to, a video-hosting provider the suspects operated, was also taken down, affecting hundreds of additional piracy sites. ACE members include Amazon, Netflix, Paramount Global, Sony Pictures, Disney Studios and Warner Bros. Discovery.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision about a broadband provider's liability for digital piracy that its subscribers commit is "the most draconian secondary liability regime" in the nation, according to Cox Communications. The decision defies U.S. Supreme Court precedent and departs from three other circuit courts, Cox noted in a cert petition Thursday. The company is seeking review of the appellate court's February decision upholding a district court jury’s finding of willful contributory copyright infringement against Cox Communications for the piracy of some of its 6 million internet customers (see 2402210027). Cox said the 4th Circuit created a three-way circuit split on the proper threshold for material-contribution liability, with the 2nd and 10th circuits requiring culpable conduct and the 9th demanding only that service providers take reasonable measures to prevent infringement. "Only the Fourth diverges entirely," it said. Sony Music Entertainment -- the lead plaintiff of the music labels that sued Cox and received a $1 billion jury verdict in 2019 (see 1912300025) -- didn't comment Friday.