Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

UMG v. Grande Communications: Another Victory for the Music Industry in Its Battle to Hold ISPs Liable for Peer-to-Peer File Sharing

By J. Alexander Lawrence
March 01, 2019

Since the advent of the Internet, the music industry has been in a pitched battle to combat online piracy. Initially, the industry focused on shutting down services that offered peer-to-peer or other similar platforms, such as Napster, Aimster and Grokster. (See, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003); MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)). For a time, the industry also focused on filing claims against individual infringers to dissuade others from engaging similar conduct. In recent years, the industry seems to have shifted focus toward Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which provide Internet connectivity to their users.

Cox Communications

In November 2014, the music industry launched their first attack on ISPs, with an action against Cox Communications in the Eastern District of Virginia. A little over a year later, after stripping Cox of its safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on summary judgment, the case culminated in a jury trial that resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict for BMG. On appeal, in a February 2018 decision, while reversing and remanding for a new trial in light of certain errors in the jury instructions, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals largely sided with BMG. See, BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018).

The Fourth Circuit's decision in BMG sets out two basic principles. First, to receive DMCA safe harbor protection, an ISP will be required to take action against subscribers where there is evidence a subscriber has engaged in repeated acts of infringement even if the subscriber has never been proven to be an infringer. Second, an ISP can be held contributorily liable for its subscribers' actions, notwithstanding that the service — providing access to the Internet — is capable of substantial non-infringing uses.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.