The ongoing legal battle between major record labels (Warner, Universal, and Sony) and internet service providers (ISPs) over their users’ music piracy and copyright infringement has reached a new phase. These continued court cases highlight the fight between copyright enforcement and unfettered internet access. Labels maintain the right to be compensated for blatant and widespread copyright infringement.
Court Ordered Damage Based on Album, Not Song
In a recent case involving Grande Communications, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit made a nuanced ruling that partially pleased and frustrated both parties. The court found Grande violated copyright law by not terminating subscribers accused of repeat piracy. However, the jury also limited the potential damages. While initially awarded $46.8 million (at $33,333 per song), the court ordered a new trial, determining damages should be calculated per album rather than per individual song.
Labels Want Fair Compensation for Copyright Infringement
The record labels are now challenging this decision. They argue that modern music is primarily commercialized as individual tracks, not albums. They’ve petitioned for an en banc rehearing, claiming the per-album damages approach prevents them from receiving “fair compensation” for copyright infringement.
ISP Denies Responsibility for Users’ Actions
Grande counters by asserting that providing internet service should not constitute actionable conduct. The company cited Supreme Court precedents suggesting that merely providing internet infrastructure doesn’t automatically imply culpability for user actions.
This case is part of a broader legal argument involving copyright enforcement and ISP responsibilities. Digital rights groups have supported ISPs. They believe that treating them as “copyright police” may lead to inaccurate infringement claims and unjust disconnections of internet service.
Cox Communications Copyright Infringement Case
Another significant case involves Cox Communications. Both the company and record labels want Supreme Court review. Cox argues that mass terminations would disproportionately harm users, while record labels seek to reinstate a $1 billion damages verdict. They argue that the jury in that case determined that Cox was guilty of “willful contributory infringement.”