Charter Communications sued by Universal, Sony and Warner for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement of music works

By Emmanuel Legrand

The three major music companies – Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group – have once again sued US digital service provider (DSP) Charter Communications for "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement."

  The music companies ague in the filing with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado that Charter has "knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers." 

  As part of this civil action, Plaintiffs are seeking damages for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and are asking for up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed. 

Refusal to take action against infringers

  In the suit, Plaintiffs explain that "despite receiving thousands of notices that detailed the illegal activity of its subscribers, despite its clear legal obligation to address the widespread, illegal downloading of copyrighted works on its Internet services, and despite being sued previously by Plaintiffs for similar conduct," Charter had "insisted on doing nothing."

  This new case is related to an ongoing lawsuit filed in Colorado in March 2019 by many of the same Plaintiffs against Charter Communication.

  Plaintiffs consider that Charter’s contribution to its subscribers’ infringement is "both willful and extensive, and renders Charter equally liable," because Charter "deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others’ copyrights, including Plaintiffs’ copyrights—even after Charter became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement." 

Charter turned a blind eye to illegal activity

  The suit develops the argument that Charter was selling to its customers high speed broadband that allowed to "download just about anything instantly" and "upload with ease," according to advertising prospectus from Charter cited in the lawsuit.

  Reads the filing: "At all pertinent times, Charter knew that its subscribers routinely used its networks for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, especially music. As described below, Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Charter that many of its subscribers were actively utilising its service to infringe their works. Those notices gave Charter the specific identities of its infringing subscribers, referred to by their unique IP addresses."

  Despite being informed of the alleged illegal activity of some of its clients, plaintiffs claim that Charter "persistently turned a blind eye to the massive infringement of Plaintiffs’ works occurring over its network, and that Charter "condoned the illegal activity because it was popular with subscribers and acted as a draw to attract and retain new and existing subscribers."

Corporate profits over legal responsibilities

  According to the lawsuit, Charter "undoubtedly recognised that if it terminated or otherwise prevented repeat infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such use, Charter would enroll fewer new subscribers, lose existing subscribers, and ultimately lose revenue. For those account holders and subscribers who wanted to download files illegally at faster speeds, Charter obliged them in exchange for higher rates. In other words, the greater the bandwidth its subscribers required for pirating content, the more money Charter made."

  The lawsuit is relevant, according to Plaintiffs, because despite being warned of illegal activity through hundreds of thousands of notices, Charter "valued corporate profits over its legal responsibilities" and did not "want to lose subscriber revenue by terminating accounts of infringing subscribers."