Contributory Infringement Archives

If Provider Knew Product Would Be Used to Infringe, It Is a Contributor

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Oct 24, 2024 | Copyrights

In a case brought by a group of record labels against an internet service provider (ISP) for contributory copyright infringement of more than 1,400 songs, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the provider, which knew how its product would be used by subscribers, could be contributorily liable for its subscribers’ actions, but that because the record companies registered albums – not individual songs – with the US Copyright Office, statutory copyright damages were not available for each infringed song. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC, Case No. 23-50162 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2024) (Higginson, Higginbotham, Stewart, JJ.)

The plaintiffs are a group of major record labels, while the defendant, Grande Communications Network, is a large ISP. To combat copyright infringement among individuals using peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent, the plaintiffs used a third-party company, Rightscorp, to identify infringing conduct by engaging with BitTorrent users, documenting that conduct, and using the information to notify ISPs of its findings so that the ISPs could take appropriate action. However, for nearly seven years Grande did not terminate subscribers for copyright infringement but merely notified them of a complaint. In the district court, a jury found Grande liable for contributory copyright infringement of more than 1,400 of the plaintiffs’ sound recordings. The jury found that the infringement was willful and awarded nearly $47 million in statutory damages. Grande appealed.

The Fifth Circuit explained that to prove direct infringement by Grande’s subscribers, the plaintiffs had to show “(1) that Plaintiffs own or have exclusive control over valid copyrights and (2) that those copyrights were directly infringed by Grande’s subscribers.” To meet the elements of secondary liability for subscribers’ conduct, “Plaintiffs had to demonstrate (3) that Grande had knowledge of its subscribers’ infringing activity and (4) that Grande induced, caused, or materially contributed to that activity.”

In analyzing the fourth element, the Fifth Circuit noted that previous Supreme Court cases involving a single moment of sale (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (1984) and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster (2005)) did not control because the plaintiffs’ theory of liability was “not based on Grande’s knowledge about its subscribers’ likely future activities after the moment of sale, but rather on Grande’s knowledge of its subscribers’ actual infringements based on its ongoing relationship with those subscribers.” Further, unlike Twitter v. Taamneh (2023) (a case in which family members of an ISIS terrorist attack victim alleged that US social media companies aided and abetted ISIS by permitting the group’s members to use the platforms for ISIS’s purposes), here the “direct nexus between Grande’s conduct and the tort at issue permits an inference that Grande’s knowing provision of internet services to infringing subscribers was actionable.”

The district court’s jury instructions – that Grande could be contributorily liable if Grande could have “take[n] basic measures to prevent further damages to copyrighted works, yet intentionally continue[d] to provide access to infringing sound recordings,” were not erroneous, as Grande had access to [...]

Continue Reading

Yo-Ho-No Vicarious Liability for Online Piracy Without Financial Benefit

by Karen Gover | Feb 29, 2024 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and affirmed in part a district court decision that found an internet service provider liable for $1 billion in damages for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. Sony Music Entm’t., et al. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., Case No. 21-1168 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2024) (Harris, Rushing, JJ., Floyd, Sr. J.) (per curiam).

Sony Music along with 52 other music companies filed suit against Cox Communications in July 2018, alleging both contributory and vicarious liability based on copyright infringement by Cox’s customers. Sony argued that Cox knew that some of its customers used its service to download or distribute songs over the internet without permission but chose not to cancel their subscriptions. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) created a safe harbor for internet service providers in such circumstances but a prior case against Cox held that it did not qualify for the safe harbor because “its repeat infringer policy as implemented was inadequate under the DMCA.” In the present case, the jury found Cox liable for vicarious and contributory infringement of all 10,017 copyrighted works alleged to have been infringed and found that Cox’s infringement was willful. The jury awarded Sony more than $99,000 per work infringed, totaling $1 billion in statutory damages. Cox appealed.

The appeal garnered noteworthy amici in support of both sides. Cox was supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Library Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology, among others. Sony was supported by the National Music Publishers’ Association, the Songwriters of North America, the Nashville Songwriters Association International and the Copyright Alliance.

Cox raised many questions of law concerning the scope of secondary liability and what constitutes a compilation or derivative work in the digital age. The Fourth Circuit upheld the jury verdict finding Cox liable for contributory copyright infringement, rejecting Cox’s arguments that its service was also used for lawful activity and that its contribution must amount to aiding and abetting the infringement. The Court explained that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is exactly the sort of conduct sufficient for contributory infringement.” The Court concluded that the jury saw sufficient evidence that Cox knew specific users were repeatedly infringing but chose not to terminate their service.

The Fourth Circuit, however, reversed the jury’s verdict of vicarious liability, finding that Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement and so did not meet the legal prerequisite for that form of secondary liability. Reviewing landmark cases on vicarious liability, the Court explained that “the crux of the financial benefit inquiry is whether a causal relationship exists between the infringing activity and a financial benefit to the defendant . . . the financial benefit to the defendant must flow directly from the third party’s acts of infringement to establish vicarious liability.” Since Sony failed to show that Cox profited from its subscribers’ infringing activity, it failed to establish vicarious liability.

The [...]

Continue Reading

No Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Post-Verdict Appeal of Previously Denied SJ Motion

by Paul Devinsky | Jan 21, 2021 | Trademarks

In a closely watched trademark/counterfeiting case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment for contributory infringement, award of permanent injunction and monetary damage award against a commercial landlord found to have been willfully blind to trademark infringement and counterfeiting occurring on its leased property. Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC, Case No. 19-969 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) (Menashi, J.) (Lohier, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). The Court also concluded that it could not consider a post-verdict appeal on a legal issue raised in a denied summary judgment motion (i.e., whether the landlord needed to know of a specific vendor involved in the counterfeiting) when the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal and did not seek an interlocutory appeal or file a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue.

375 Canal LLC is a commercial landlord with properties in Manhattan, including 375 Canal Street. Omega SA is a watch company. Omega sued Canal for contributory trademark infringement, alleging that Canal had continued to lease space at 375 Canal Street to vendors despite knowing that the vendors were selling counterfeit Omega goods. After discovery, Canal moved for summary judgment, contending that Omega did not identify a specific vendor to which Canal continued to lease property despite knowing or having reason to know that the specific vendor was selling counterfeit goods. Omega argued that its primary theory of willful blindness did not require identification of a specific vendor. The district court denied Canal’s motion, agreeing that Omega was not required to identify a specific vendor.

The jury found that Canal had contributorily and willfully infringed Omega’s trademarks, and awarded $1.1 million in statutory damages. The district court amended the final judgment to include a permanent injunction prohibiting Canal from infringing and taking other actions with respect to Omega’s marks, even outside of 375 Canal Street. Canal appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not requiring Omega to identify a specific vendor that Canal knew or should have known was infringing Omega’s trademarks. Canal raised this argument by appealing the pre-trial order denying Canal’s motion for summary judgment and the jury instructions.

The Second Circuit dismissed Canal’s appeal of the summary judgment denial and affirmed the jury instructions on the merits. On Canal’s challenge to the summary judgment denial, the Court began with the premise that a party generally cannot appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits because of its interlocutory character, which is not within appellate jurisdiction. The denial of Canal’s summary judgment motion did not qualify for an exception allowing review, such as situations where Congress has provided for review of certain interlocutory decisions, or where the Supreme Court has construed certain denials of summary judgment, such as those on the basis of qualified immunity, as final decisions permitting review. But even if it had qualified, Canal would have been required to file a notice of appeal within [...]

Continue Reading