UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 8 of 11. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I – Contributory Infringement 85. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control in the U.S. 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. 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. Verizon is liable as a contributory infringer for the direct infringements described above. 90. Through Plaintiffs’ infringement notices and other means, Verizon had knowledge that its network was being used to infringe Plaintiffs’ works on a massive scale, and also knew of specific subscribers engaged in such repeated and flagrant infringement of specific works. 91. Verizon nevertheless facilitated, encouraged, and materially contributed to such infringement by continuing to provide its services, network, and the facilities necessary for its subscribers to commit repeated infringements. Verizon had the means to withhold that assistance upon learning of specific infringing activity by specific users but failed to do so. 92. By purposefully ignoring and turning a blind eye to its subscribers’ flagrant and repeated infringements, Verizon knowingly caused and materially contributed to 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. 93. 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. 94. 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 infringement notices. 95. 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. 96. 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. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 8 of 11. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 8 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I – Contributory Infringement 85. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control in the U.S. 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. 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. Verizon is liable as a contributory infringer for the direct infringements described above. 90. Through Plaintiffs’ infringement notices and other means, Verizon had knowledge that its network was being used to infringe Plaintiffs’ works on a massive scale, and also knew of specific subscribers engaged in such repeated and flagrant infringement of specific works. 91. Verizon nevertheless facilitated, encouraged, and materially contributed to such infringement by continuing to provide its services, network, and the facilities necessary for its subscribers to commit repeated infringements. Verizon had the means to withhold that assistance upon learning of specific infringing activity by specific users but failed to do so. 92. By purposefully ignoring and turning a blind eye to its subscribers’ flagrant and repeated infringements, Verizon knowingly caused and materially contributed to 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. 93. 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. 94. 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 infringement notices. 95. 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. 96. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . 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. 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. storage.courtlistener

Verizon Faces Contributory Infringement Claims for Enabling Piracy

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

The Noonification: Meet Bright Data: HackerNoon Company of the Week (7/22/2024)

Record Labels Demand Jury Trial in Verizon Copyright Infringement Case

Music Industry Demands Statutory Damages from Verizon in Copyright Lawsuit

Verizon Faces Vicarious Infringement Lawsuit Over Subscriber Piracy

High-Speed Internet and High-Stakes Piracy

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

The Noonification: Meet Bright Data: HackerNoon Company of the Week (7/22/2024)

Record Labels Demand Jury Trial in Verizon Copyright Infringement Case

Music Industry Demands Statutory Damages from Verizon in Copyright Lawsuit

Verizon Faces Vicarious Infringement Lawsuit Over Subscriber Piracy

High-Speed Internet and High-Stakes Piracy

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps