recently, A federal district court in Florida has ruled against the ISPs (ISP) Bright House Networks Action of, The company accused several major record labels of sending it false and fraudulent piracy notices to get its subscribers offline.

the ISP Hoping to bring the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) And its anti-piracy partner, Mark (Mark Monitor) And join the lawsuit, But because he failed to do the right thing "false" Declare action action, Therefore, his claim is invalid. According to US copyright law, ISP must "Where appropriate" Terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. In the past, Such radical moves are rare, But backed by legal pressure, ISP Increasingly, this standard is being held to.

Before a lawsuit against repeated infringers, Including SONY Music Entertainment (Sony Music Entertainment) , Universal music (Universal Music) And Warner Records (Warner Records) Several major music industry companies, including some of America's biggest ISP Initiate a lawsuit. This includes licensed communications companies (Charter) subordinate Bright House. The music companies hope to win hundreds of millions of dollars from such lawsuits.

Although it sounds like a very high claim, but 2020 years, A federal jury is looking at Cox Communications (Cox Communications) The suit was made 10 A hundred million dollar award. Against falsehood "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" Counterclaim of notice Bright House Willing to do whatever it takes to avoid that, In parallel 2020 years 7 Month filed a countersuit.

the ISP They fought back in a counterclaim, Accused the record label of sending inaccurate and deceptive delete notices. Bright House Consider it a violation "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) And Florida "Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act" . 1 After a month, Bright House Ask the court for permission to RIAA And its anti-piracy partner Mark Monitor were included in the lawsuit, For both are at the heart of the wrongdoing. Record companies are not happy about the allegations, And asked the court to dismiss it ISP claim.

Although they may have sent some incorrect notifications, But they think Bright House No standing to Sue, Because the ISP No action was taken in accordance with the notice. No disconnection, no harm, the argument goes "Repeat infringer" Basic problem of. Record company pair Bright House Initiate a lawsuit, Because it doesn't disconnect persistent pirates. Therefore, Even if the record label sent false notices, No real damage will be done.

After hearing both sides, District Court Judge Mary M．Scriven (Mary Scriven) A decision was made in the case, Clearly on the side of the record labels. "Bright House Alleges that the plaintiff knowingly sent a false notice of infringement, Thereby violating DMCA The first 512 article f paragraph. The counterclaim was a legal failure, because Bright House Does not prove that it has removed or blocked access to any suspected infringing content in accordance with the notice. "

Scriven points out, The case is similar to one filed by Charter Communications against record labels, That suit was dropped a few weeks ago, Because the chartered communications company failed to prove that its basis was false DMCA The notification disconnects the subscriber. The false notice claim is dismissed, the judge wrote: "Bright House The counterclaim is also fatally flawed, Therefore dismissed. "

According to the court, the ISP The second claim is that, The record company violated the state of Florida "Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act" . According to the law, The right thing to do is Bright House It should be argued that false notice is as "A transaction or business activity" Part of the sent, the "A transaction or business activity" It usually involves advertising or providing a service, Property or other things of value. Scriven points out, The case does not apply.

The second claim was also rejected on grounds "Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act" The claims made are also flawed, Because for Bright House, Its subscribers or any other party, The notice of infringement does not constitute any advertisement, solicit, provide, Or distribute any "Something of value" . The judge wrote: "Plaintiffs send notices of infringement to maintain their legal rights in the recordings and works. " This means that both counterclaims are dismissed. although Bright House Another request was made, Immediate pair RIAA And its anti-piracy partners Right Corp Make the same claim, But it is also a futile effort, Because the basic argument is weak.

Even if the counterclaims are dismissed, The case will now continue. Bright House Still had to defend himself, In response to repeated infringement issues and copyright infringement claims from the record labels.

(Compiled from torrentfreak. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Wang Dan　proofread: Rason group

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.