Bright House Doesn't Directly Profit From Pirating Subscribers, Court Rules
A federal court in Florida has dismissed the vicarious copyright infringement claims against ISP Bright House Networks. The company is being sued by a group of prominent record labels who argue that the Internet provider directly profited from piracy. The court disagrees, characterizing the accusations as "a sort of 'dog-whistle' theory."
Last year a group of music industry giants, including Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros, sued Bright House Networks for failing to disconnect pirating subscribers.
Bright House is owned by Charter, which was sued in a separate complaint simultaneously. In both cases, the music companies demanded compensation for their alleged losses.
The lawsuits, which are part of a broader legal campaign against ISPs, have continued on their own paths since. Both Bright House and Charter submitted motions to dismiss the claims. For Bright House, this resulted in a victory late last week.
In February, the ISP submitted a motion to dismiss the vicarious copyright infringement claims. Bright House refuted the claim that it profited directly from pirating subscribers, something which the court now agrees.
Dismissal of vicarious liability claim (PDF).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 18 2020, @08:03PM (1 child)
We need our representatives to remember who they represent. I could loan them a hatchet, to start chopping these mafiosa rent seekers off at the knees.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 19 2020, @12:49AM
Your representatives are quite aware of who they represent.
Follow the money and you can figure out who that is.