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 5 of 11. VERIZON AND ITS ACTIVITIES 52. Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. 53. Defendant Verizon Services Corp. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. 54. Defendant Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. 55. Verizon Communications Inc. is one of the leading providers of technology and communications services in the United States and in the world. Through its subsidiaries, including Verizon Services Corp. and Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless), Verizon Communications Inc. provides wireless and wireline data and Internet services to millions of residential and business subscribers around the country. 56. As of December 2023, Verizon’s consumer group, which focuses primarily on residential subscribers, provided 115 million wireless retail connections, 9 million broadband connections, and 3 million video connections. Verizon also provided business customers with approximately 30 million wireless retail connections and approximately 2 million total broadband connections 57. At all pertinent times, Verizon’s customers have paid substantial subscription fees for access to Verizon’s high-speed Internet service, with Verizon offering a tiered pricing structure whereby a subscriber can purchase faster downloading speeds for a higher monthly fee. 58. Many of Verizon’s customers are motivated to subscribe to Verizon’s service because it allows them to download music and other copyrighted content—including unauthorized content—as fast as possible. Accordingly, in its consumer marketing materials, Verizon touts the speed at which its customers can download content. For example, Verizon has stated, “You can download an HD movie before the popcorn is ready with speeds nearing a gigabit, just to give you an idea how fast that is.”[2] In the same consumer marketing material, Verizon also states that it is “one of the only internet service providers to offer nearly matching download and upload speeds on most plans, which is a major advantage when you’re . . . sharing large files.”[3] 59. Verizon has consistently and actively engaged in sophisticated network and customer management practices to suit its own purposes. This includes monitoring for, and taking action against, spam and other unwanted activity that might otherwise interfere with its provision of Internet service to its subscribers. At the same time, Verizon has gone out of its way not to take action against subscribers engaging in repeated copyright infringement, at the expense of copyright owners, ultimately forcing Plaintiffs to bring this action. 60. Verizon’s failure to take action against subscribers using its network to engage in repeated copyright infringement is contrary to its own policies. Indeed, Verizon’s “Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy” prohibits subscribers from using “Verizon’s systems or servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, under US copyright law,” and further states that, “[p]ursuant to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it is Verizon’s policy to terminate the account of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances.”[4] Verizon’s “Acceptable Use Policy” (“AUP”) reiterates that subscribers may not use Verizon’s network to infringe the intellectual property rights of others, including copyright. The AUP refers to violations of “any third party’s copyright” as an example of conduct “which may lead to termination of [a subscriber’s] Service.”[5] 61. While publicly stating that its customers may not use its network to infringe, Verizon privately takes active steps to thwart copyright owners from informing Verizon about P2P infringements by its customers. Verizon purports to accept infringement notices through two avenues, but in reality, both are illusory and ineffective. 62. Through one channel, Verizon claims to allow copyright holders to send P2P notices through a so-called “Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program,” but it has attached such onerous conditions to participation that the program is rendered a nullity. Not only has Verizon required participants to pay burdensome fees for simple, automated processes like Internet Protocol (“IP”) address lookups and notice forwarding, but participants have been required to waive their copyright claims, broadly indemnify Verizon, and, tellingly, keep the terms of the program confidential. Verizon has also limited the number of notices it will forward pursuant to the program. 63. For copyright owners unwilling to waive their rights and “pay-to-play,” Verizon directs them to send email notices concerning P2P infringement to CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com. Verizon publicly states that it “do[es] not review, process, or otherwise take action on [P2P] notices . . . sent via email to any other Verizon email inbox.”[6] And yet Verizon plainly does not even review, process or otherwise take action on notices sent by email to CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com. Verizon does not forward these notices to subscribers or track the number of email notices sent regarding repeat infringing subscribers. Verizon also arbitrarily caps the number of notices permitted per copyright holder at this address—ironic, to say the least, given that Verizon ignored hundreds of thousands of Plaintiffs’ notices to this email inbox. 64. At all pertinent times, Verizon knew that its subscribers routinely used its networks for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, especially sound recordings. As described below, Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Verizon that thousands of its subscribers were actively utilizing its service to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Those notices gave Verizon the specific identities of its subscribers engaged in copyright infringement, referred to by their unique IP addresses. Verizon also received millions of notices from other copyright owners, some of which undoubtedly addressed the same subscribers as Plaintiffs’ notices. Verizon thus knew which particular subscribers engaged in repeat infringement and Verizon had the right and ability to stop that infringement, including by suspending or terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. Yet Verizon condoned its subscribers’ illegal activity because it profited from that activity and its permissive stance toward that activity acted as a draw to attract and retain new and existing subscribers. Verizon’s customers, in turn, continued using Verizon’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. 65. Verizon undoubtedly recognized that if it terminated or otherwise prevented its repeat infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such use, Verizon 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, Verizon provided the means for them to do so in exchange for higher subscription fees. Indeed, Verizon offered “tiered” service plans in which subscribers could pay less for a lower-tier plan with limits on upload and download speeds and the amount of data available monthly, or alternatively, subscribers could pay more for a higher-tier plan with unlimited data and faster upload and download speeds. In other words, the greater the bandwidth or speed its subscribers required for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, the more money Verizon made. 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. Lead image by Marques Thomas on Unsplash [2] Verizon Fios Home Internet webpage with FAQs, available at https://www.verizon.com/home/internet/fios-fastest-internet/ (last accessed July 8, 2024). [3] Id. [4] Verizon Customer Agreement, available at https://www.verizon.com/about/termsconditions/verizon-customer-agreement (last accessed June 19, 2024). [5] Id. [6] Copyright Infringement Claims and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), available at https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/account/manage-account/security/copyrightinfringement-claims (last accessed June 20, 2024). 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 5 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 5 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here VERIZON AND ITS ACTIVITIES 52. Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. 53. Defendant Verizon Services Corp. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. 54. Defendant Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. 55. Verizon Communications Inc. is one of the leading providers of technology and communications services in the United States and in the world. Through its subsidiaries, including Verizon Services Corp. and Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless), Verizon Communications Inc. provides wireless and wireline data and Internet services to millions of residential and business subscribers around the country. 56. As of December 2023, Verizon’s consumer group, which focuses primarily on residential subscribers, provided 115 million wireless retail connections, 9 million broadband connections, and 3 million video connections. Verizon also provided business customers with approximately 30 million wireless retail connections and approximately 2 million total broadband connections 57. At all pertinent times, Verizon’s customers have paid substantial subscription fees for access to Verizon’s high-speed Internet service, with Verizon offering a tiered pricing structure whereby a subscriber can purchase faster downloading speeds for a higher monthly fee. 58. Many of Verizon’s customers are motivated to subscribe to Verizon’s service because it allows them to download music and other copyrighted content—including unauthorized content—as fast as possible. Accordingly, in its consumer marketing materials, Verizon touts the speed at which its customers can download content. For example, Verizon has stated, “You can download an HD movie before the popcorn is ready with speeds nearing a gigabit, just to give you an idea how fast that is.”[2] In the same consumer marketing material, Verizon also states that it is “one of the only internet service providers to offer nearly matching download and upload speeds on most plans, which is a major advantage when you’re . . . sharing large files.”[3] 59. Verizon has consistently and actively engaged in sophisticated network and customer management practices to suit its own purposes. This includes monitoring for, and taking action against, spam and other unwanted activity that might otherwise interfere with its provision of Internet service to its subscribers. At the same time, Verizon has gone out of its way not to take action against subscribers engaging in repeated copyright infringement, at the expense of copyright owners, ultimately forcing Plaintiffs to bring this action. 60. Verizon’s failure to take action against subscribers using its network to engage in repeated copyright infringement is contrary to its own policies. Indeed, Verizon’s “Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy” prohibits subscribers from using “Verizon’s systems or servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, under US copyright law,” and further states that, “[p]ursuant to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it is Verizon’s policy to terminate the account of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances.”[4] Verizon’s “Acceptable Use Policy” (“AUP”) reiterates that subscribers may not use Verizon’s network to infringe the intellectual property rights of others, including copyright. The AUP refers to violations of “any third party’s copyright” as an example of conduct “which may lead to termination of [a subscriber’s] Service.”[5] 61. While publicly stating that its customers may not use its network to infringe, Verizon privately takes active steps to thwart copyright owners from informing Verizon about P2P infringements by its customers. Verizon purports to accept infringement notices through two avenues, but in reality, both are illusory and ineffective. 62. Through one channel, Verizon claims to allow copyright holders to send P2P notices through a so-called “Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program,” but it has attached such onerous conditions to participation that the program is rendered a nullity. Not only has Verizon required participants to pay burdensome fees for simple, automated processes like Internet Protocol (“IP”) address lookups and notice forwarding, but participants have been required to waive their copyright claims, broadly indemnify Verizon, and, tellingly, keep the terms of the program confidential. Verizon has also limited the number of notices it will forward pursuant to the program. 63. For copyright owners unwilling to waive their rights and “pay-to-play,” Verizon directs them to send email notices concerning P2P infringement to CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com. Verizon publicly states that it “do[es] not review, process, or otherwise take action on [P2P] notices . . . sent via email to any other Verizon email inbox.”[6] And yet Verizon plainly does not even review, process or otherwise take action on notices sent by email to CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com. Verizon does not forward these notices to subscribers or track the number of email notices sent regarding repeat infringing subscribers. Verizon also arbitrarily caps the number of notices permitted per copyright holder at this address—ironic, to say the least, given that Verizon ignored hundreds of thousands of Plaintiffs’ notices to this email inbox. 64. At all pertinent times, Verizon knew that its subscribers routinely used its networks for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, especially sound recordings. As described below, Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Verizon that thousands of its subscribers were actively utilizing its service to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Those notices gave Verizon the specific identities of its subscribers engaged in copyright infringement, referred to by their unique IP addresses. Verizon also received millions of notices from other copyright owners, some of which undoubtedly addressed the same subscribers as Plaintiffs’ notices. Verizon thus knew which particular subscribers engaged in repeat infringement and Verizon had the right and ability to stop that infringement, including by suspending or terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. Yet Verizon condoned its subscribers’ illegal activity because it profited from that activity and its permissive stance toward that activity acted as a draw to attract and retain new and existing subscribers. Verizon’s customers, in turn, continued using Verizon’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. 65. Verizon undoubtedly recognized that if it terminated or otherwise prevented its repeat infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such use, Verizon 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, Verizon provided the means for them to do so in exchange for higher subscription fees. Indeed, Verizon offered “tiered” service plans in which subscribers could pay less for a lower-tier plan with limits on upload and download speeds and the amount of data available monthly, or alternatively, subscribers could pay more for a higher-tier plan with unlimited data and faster upload and download speeds. In other words, the greater the bandwidth or speed its subscribers required for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, the more money Verizon made. 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 Lead image by Marques Thomas on Unsplash Lead image by Marques Thomas on Unsplash Marques Thomas on Unsplash [2] Verizon Fios Home Internet webpage with FAQs, available at https://www.verizon.com/home/internet/fios-fastest-internet/ (last accessed July 8, 2024). https://www.verizon.com/home/internet/fios-fastest-internet/ [3] Id. [4] Verizon Customer Agreement, available at https://www.verizon.com/about/termsconditions/verizon-customer-agreement (last accessed June 19, 2024). https://www.verizon.com/about/termsconditions/verizon-customer-agreement [5] Id. [6] Copyright Infringement Claims and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), available at https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/account/manage-account/security/copyrightinfringement-claims (last accessed June 20, 2024). https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/account/manage-account/security/copyrightinfringement-claims

Verizon Cast as Scapegoat in Global P2P Piracy Crisis 

Universal Music, Warner, Sony Among Plaintiffs in Verizon Copyright Suit

Too Long; Didn't Read

Make resilience your competitive advantage

Verizon Accused of Facilitating Music Piracy: Plaintiffs Seek Damages

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

UMG Recordings Files Lawsuit Agains Verizon for Copyright Infringement

Universal and Sony Music Sue Verizon for Supporting Online Piracy

Verizon's New York Ties Come into Play in UMG's Copyright Infringement Suit

Universal Music, Warner, Sony Among Plaintiffs in Verizon Copyright Suit

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

UMG Recordings Files Lawsuit Agains Verizon for Copyright Infringement

Universal and Sony Music Sue Verizon for Supporting Online Piracy

Verizon's New York Ties Come into Play in UMG's Copyright Infringement Suit

Universal Music, Warner, Sony Among Plaintiffs in Verizon Copyright Suit

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps