paint-brush
Verizon Faces Vicarious Infringement Lawsuit Over Subscriber Piracyby@legalpdf
New Story

Verizon Faces Vicarious Infringement Lawsuit Over Subscriber Piracy

tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Record labels are suing Verizon for vicarious infringement, alleging that the ISP profited from and enabled its subscribers' illegal downloads of copyrighted music via BitTorrent. The lawsuit claims Verizon ignored infringement notices to maintain subscriber revenue.
featured image - Verizon Faces Vicarious Infringement Lawsuit Over Subscriber Piracy
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. YYou can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 9 of 11.

Count II – Vicarious Infringement

97. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein.


98. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control over rights in the sound recordings listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’ works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401.


99. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others.


100. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401.


101. Verizon is liable as a vicarious infringer for the direct infringements described above.


102. Verizon has the legal and practical right and ability to supervise and control the infringing activities that occur through the use of its network, including through the enforcement of its AUP and its Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy.


103. At all relevant times, Verizon has had a financial interest in, and derived direct financial benefit from, the infringing use of its network. Verizon has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’ infringement. The ability to use Verizon’s high-speed Internet network and facilities to illegally download Plaintiffs’ works has served to draw, maintain, and generate higher fees from paying subscribers to Verizon’s service. Among other financial benefits, by failing to terminate the accounts of specific repeat infringers known to Verizon, Verizon has profited from illicit revenue through user subscription fees that it would not have otherwise received from repeat infringers and by drawing new subscribers to Verizon’s services for the purpose of illegally downloading and distributing protected works. The specific infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices, including the particularly egregious infringers identified herein, knew Verizon would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple notices identifying them as infringers, and they remained Verizon subscribers to continue illegally downloading and distributing Plaintiffs’ works.


104. Verizon is vicariously liable for the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States.


105. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a tolling agreement between the parties.


106. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple prior infringement notices.


107. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial.


108. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.


Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case retrieved on July 12, 2024, storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.