Internet service provider Altice USA is facing another lawsuit from music rightsholders over its alleged enabling of widespread music piracy through its service.<\/p>\n
Late last year, Altice was hit with a $1-billion<\/strong> lawsuit<\/a> on behalf of music rightsholders including Universal Music Group<\/strong>, BMG<\/strong>, and Concord Music Group<\/strong>, who sought to have the internet provider held accountable for \u201cmillions\u201d of alleged infringements of \u201cthousands\u201d of their songs.<\/p>\n That lawsuit is ongoing, after a judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Altice\u2019s motion to dismiss the case earlier this year.<\/p>\n Now, Sony Music Entertainment<\/strong> and Warner Music Group<\/strong> have filed a similar lawsuit in the same US District Court, accusing Altice of \u201cknowingly contribut[ing] to, and reap[ing] substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint, filed on Thursday (December 7), lists in its Exhibit A <\/a>and Exhibit B <\/a> attachments over\u00a06,700<\/strong> sound recordings and 4,000 <\/strong>compositions respectively that were allegedly infringed by Altice subscribers using the BitTorrent protocol between 2020 and 2023.<\/p>\n The lawsuit cites the maximum statutory fine of $150,000<\/strong> per alleged violation, implying that damages sought by the music companies from Altice USA could exceed USD $1.6 billion<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The complaint also notes that “the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A and the musical compositions listed on Exhibit B”\u00a0 are “illustrative and non-exhaustive”.<\/p>\n \u201cDespite receiving tens of thousands of notices from plaintiffs that detailed the illegal activity of its subscribers and despite its clear legal obligation to address the widespread, illegal downloading of copyrighted works on its Internet service, Altice enabled its subscribers to continue infringing plaintiffs\u2019 copyrights with impunity through the continued provision of its high-speed Internet service to known repeat infringers,\u201d states the complaint, which can be read in full here.<\/a><\/p>\n Altice is the fourth-largest ISP in the United States, serving nearly 5 million<\/strong> subscribers in 21<\/strong> states through its Optimum brand. It\u2019s majority-owned by Netherlands-based telecommunications firm Altice Europe NV<\/strong>. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board<\/strong> and London-based investment firm BC Partners<\/strong> are minority shareholders.<\/p>\n More than 50<\/strong> record labels and music publishers are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, all of them falling under the WMG or SME umbrellas. Among them are Warner-owned labels Atlantic Records<\/strong>, Bad Boy Records<\/strong> and Elektra<\/strong>, and Sony-owned labels Arista<\/strong>, Ultra Records<\/strong> and Zomba<\/strong>. Music publishers Warner-Chappell Music<\/strong>, Warner-Tamerlane<\/strong>, Sony Music Publishing<\/strong> and EMI<\/strong> are also named as plaintiffs.<\/p>\n The complaint alleges that \u201cAltice\u2019s contribution to its subscribers\u2019 infringement is both willful and extensive, and it renders Altice equally liable for that infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n It asserts that Altice \u201cdeliberately refused to take reasonable measures to prevent customers from using its internet services to infringe on others\u2019 copyrights, including plaintiffs\u2019 copyrights \u2013 even after Altice was put on notice of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n The music companies involved sent \u201ctens of thousands of statutory infringement notices to Altice, in addition to the millions of similar notices Altice received from other copyright holders.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint argues that Altice can\u2019t hide behind the \u201csafe harbor\u201d provision in US copyright law, under which internet providers can claim immunity from copyright liability if they cooperate with rights holders in enforcing copyrights, because the telecom allegedly didn\u2019t take any action against repeat infringers on its network.<\/p>\n \u201cAltice routinely thumbed its nose at plaintiffs by continuing to provide service to subscribers it knew to be serially infringing plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions\u2026 Altice operated its service as an attractive tool and safe haven for infringement,\u201d the lawsuit alleges.<\/p>\n \u201cAltice routinely thumbed its nose at plaintiffs by continuing to provide service to subscribers it knew to be serially infringing plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions.”<\/p>\n Legal complaint against Altice USA<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The complaint says that piracy of copyrighted content through the BitTorrent protocol \u201cis stunning in nature, speed, and scope. Utilizing a BitTorrent client\u2026 persons connected to the internet can locate, access, and download copyrighted content from other peers in the blink of an eye. They download copyrighted music from other network users, usually total strangers, and end up with complete digital copies of any music they desire \u2013 without payment to copyright owners or creators”.<\/p>\n The complaint cites data from network intelligence company Sandvine<\/strong> showing that two of the most common BitTorrent clients, BitTorrent and uTorrent, have been downloaded and installed more than 2 billion<\/strong> times. In 2021, BitTorrent traffic accounted for nearly 3%<\/strong> of all internet traffic globally, Sandvine estimated.<\/p>\n The lawsuit is just the latest in a series of court cases in recent years, in which music rights holders have accused internet providers of turning a blind eye to music piracy on their networks.<\/p>\n In one noteworthy case in 2019, Cox Communications<\/strong>, another major US internet provider, was ordered to pay $1 billion<\/strong> in damages<\/a> to Sony Music, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group in a case involving the infringement of more than 10,000<\/strong> songs. Cox appealed that verdict, but the original verdict was upheld<\/a>.<\/p>\n Another noteworthy case involved Charter Communications<\/strong> \u2013 with 29 million<\/strong> broadband subscribers as of 2021 \u2013 which was hit with a lawsuit in 2019 on behalf of numerous music rights holders, alleging the telecom had allowed unauthorized file-sharing between 2013 and 2016.<\/p>\n That case expanded in 2021, when Charter was hit with another, $400-million<\/strong> lawsuit<\/a>, this one alleging copyright infringement between 2018 and 2021. Charter settled those cases<\/a> out of court in 2022.<\/p>\n
\n