# Music Publishing Firms Achieve Another Legal Triumph Over Broadband Provider in Piracy Litigation
In a notable legal success for the music sector, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has favored the “big three” record companies—Universal, Warner, and Sony—against Grande Communications, a branch of Astound Broadband. The case revolves around Grande’s purported neglect to act against subscribers accused of participating in unlawful music piracy. While the court mandated a new trial to reevaluate the $46.8 million damages awarded, it confirmed the lower court’s determination that Grande is culpable for contributory copyright infringement.
## Case Background
The lawsuit launched by the major music labels alleged that Grande Communications ignored piracy activities carried out by its subscribers. The plaintiffs contended that Grande failed to respond to infringement notifications issued by **Rightscorp**, a copyright enforcement firm employed by the labels. Rightscorp oversees torrent downloads to identify IP addresses associated with unlawful file-sharing and sends infringement alerts to the related Internet service providers (ISPs).
According to the plaintiffs, Grande continued its Internet services to subscribers who were repeatedly marked for copyright infringement, despite receiving comprehensive notices from Rightscorp. The record labels asserted that Grande’s inaction constituted contributory copyright infringement, as the company knowingly enabled unlawful downloading by not ceasing the accounts of habitual offenders.
## The Court’s Decision
In its verdict, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals aligned with the music labels, affirming that Grande was responsible for contributory copyright infringement. The court underscored that Grande had adequate awareness of its subscribers’ infringing conduct but opted not to undertake significant measures to avert further violations.
The ruling was anchored in the evidence provided during the trial, which indicated that Grande was cognizant of specific IP addresses linked to illegal downloading. Despite this awareness, the company continued offering Internet services to those subscribers without taking any actions to mitigate the infringement.
### Important Findings
The court ruling underlined several critical aspects:
1. **Awareness of Infringement**: The court determined that Grande either knew or was “willfully blind” to the identities of its infringing subscribers. Rightscorp’s notifications provided specific IP addresses connected to illegal downloading, granting Grande plenty of information to proceed.
2. **Inaction**: The court observed that Grande had a “simple measure” within reach to prevent further infringement—terminating the accounts of repeat offenders. Nonetheless, the company chose not to implement this measure, permitting the infringing activities to persist.
3. **Dismissal of Grande’s Defense**: Grande and its proponents argued that disconnecting Internet services for users accused of piracy would be a “draconian overreaction” and an excessively punitive measure. Nevertheless, the court dismissed this claim, asserting that a reasonable jury might conclude that termination was a fundamental and essential step to prevent additional copyright violations.
### Damages Reevaluation
While the court affirmed the finding of liability, it called for a new trial to reevaluate the $46.8 million in damages that had been conferred to the music labels. The appeals court considered the initial damages award to be too high, but it did not contest the underlying judgment that held Grande accountable for contributory copyright infringement.
## Rightscorp’s Involvement
A pivotal entity in the case is **Rightscorp**, a for-profit copyright enforcement organization that collaborates with entertainment firms to detect and tackle online piracy. Rightscorp observes peer-to-peer networks, such as BitTorrent, to locate users who are unlawfully sharing copyrighted material. The company then dispatches infringement notifications to ISPs, supplying them with the IP addresses of the suspected infringers.
Rightscorp’s methodologies have generated controversy, with detractors claiming that its tactics are excessively aggressive and that it frequently targets individuals who might not be aware they are breaching copyrights. However, in this instance, the court found that Rightscorp’s alerts furnished Grande with adequate information to take action against repeat offenders.
## Consequences for ISPs and Copyright Enforcement
The 5th Circuit’s ruling carries significant repercussions for Internet service providers (ISPs) and their responsibilities in combating online piracy. The court’s conclusion reinforces the notion that ISPs can be held accountable for contributory copyright infringement if they neglect to act against subscribers who are repeatedly accused of illegal downloading.
This ruling delivers a clear message to ISPs that they cannot merely disregard infringement notices from copyright holders. Although ISPs have historically claimed that terminating Internet services is an extreme action, the court’s ruling suggests that such measures may be imperative to prevent ongoing copyright law violations.
### The Ongoing Discussion on Service Termination
One of the main concerns in the case is whether terminating a subscriber’s Internet service is a suitable response to repeated allegations of piracy. Grande and its allies contended that severing Internet access is a “drastic and overbroad remedy” that could have dire consequences for individuals dependent on the Internet for employment, education
