BMI and six major music publishers reached a settlement with Solace Outpost, a brewery-restaurant in Falls Church, Virginia, and its owner, Ian Hilton, to resolve copyright infringement allegations that musical compositions in the BMI repertoire were performed publicly there without a license (see 2311200002), said the plaintiffs’ status report Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01572) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria. Under the terms of that settlement agreement, the plaintiffs will file a voluntary stipulation of dismissal once the payments made under the agreement have cleared, which the plaintiffs believe will be by April 30, said the report. The complaint alleged four claims of willful copyright infringement against Hilton and the establishment.
The 14 author plaintiffs in the copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Northern District of California are appealing a district court's April 1 denial of their motion to intervene in the four New York actions against Microsoft and OpenAI for the purpose of transferring, staying or dismissing those actions (see 2404020001), said their notice of appeal Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00084). The California plaintiffs wrongly claim an interest in avoiding contradictory rulings between the New York and California actions and that those contradictory rulings would impair their interests, said the order from Judge Sidney Stein for Southern New York. But the “substantial differences” between the California and New York actions “lessen any risk of contradictory rulings,” it said.
Altice and the 54 record labels and music publishers suing the ISP for contributory copyright infringement (see 2312080050) have agreed on former U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal of Signature Resolution in Los Angeles as their mediator, said their joint notice Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall. Segal was a magistrate judge for 18 years in the Central District of California before retiring in 2020, per her LinkedIn bio. The labels and publishers allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers. Altice has been fending off similar allegations from BMG and its affiliates in the same courthouse in a case that dates to December 2022 (see 2212150019). The parties in the BMG case against Altice picked Segal as their mediator last year (see 2303170034).
In light of settlement talks that appear to be “ongoing” between BMI and Maggie’s Bar & Grill in Jackson, New Jersey (see 2403070027), U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni for New Jersey in Trenton ordered the parties to submit an additional status update regarding those talks by May 10, said her text order Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-03135). BMI contacted the restaurant’s managers more than 80 times since October 2019 about the necessity of “purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire,” said the June 7 complaint from BMI and five music publishers (see 2306080044). They allege six claims of willful copyright infringement against the establishment, based on its “unauthorized public performance of musical compositions.”
The New York Times Co. seeks a status conference to discuss the case schedule in its AI copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, said the company’s letter Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-11195) to U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein for Southern New York in Manhattan. Microsoft and OpenAI don’t oppose the request, it said. The Times proposes that its case follow the schedule to which the defendants stipulated in the three consolidated authors’ complaints, said the letter. Microsoft and OpenAI object to applying that schedule, but they each submitted different counterproposals, it said: “Given the variety of options presented to the Court, a status conference will help resolve the parties’ disputes over the schedule. Setting a schedule will also help all parties efficiently plan for discovery, which is already underway.” The Times alleges that generative AI tools from Microsoft and OpenAI rely on large-language models that were built by copying and using millions of the paper's copyrighted news articles, in violation of the Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other statutes (see 2312270044).
The 54 record labels and music publishers that brought contributory copyright infringement allegations against Altice (see 2312080050) have designated Matthew Oppenheim of Oppenheim + Zebrak as lead counsel on behalf of all the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs’ notice Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall. The labels and publishers allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers. Altice has been fending off similar allegations from BMG and its affiliates in the same courthouse in a case that dates to December 2022 (see 2212150019).
The four dozen record labels and music publishers in the contributory copyright infringement appeal brought by Cox Communications agree with Cox that a stay of the mandate pending the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s resolution of Cox’s Rule 60(b) appeal (see 2403260027) is “appropriate,” said their response Friday (docket 21-1168). But the labels and publishers oppose the stay pending resolution of Cox’s cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, it said. Cox’s Rule 60(b) appeal lacks merit “and will be disposed of in due course,” but the labels and publishers “nevertheless agree that judicial economy would be best served” by the 4th Circuit “resolving all of Cox’s challenges to the underlying trial and then remanding for a retrial on damages,” it said. The labels and publishers oppose Cox’s separate request for a stay pending cert because such a a stay is warranted only where the petition will present a substantial question and that there’s good cause for a stay, it said. Cox’s good cause arguments are “overblown,” and the labels and publishers don’t concede “that such cause exists to stay the mandate pending the resolution of Cox’s cert petition,” it said. In light of Cox’s failure to identify any substantial question for Supreme Court review, a stay pending the resolution of Cox’s cert petition is “inappropriate,” it said.
Cox Communications is asking the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to stay the issuance of its mandate in Cox’s contributory copyright infringement appeal pending the resolution of further appellate proceedings in the 4th Circuit and in the U.S. Supreme Court, said its motion Monday (docket 21-1168). A 4th Circuit panel last month affirmed a district court jury’s finding of willful contributory copyright infringement against Cox for the piracy actions of some of its 6 million internet customers, but it reversed the jury’s vicarious liability verdict, and remanded the case to U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia for a new trial on damages (see 2402210027). A stay of the mandate is warranted on “two independent grounds,” said Cox’s motion. The 4th Circuit hasn’t yet resolved all of Cox’s challenges to the initial judgment from which Cox appealed, it said. Still pending in the 4th Circuit is Cox’s appeal from the denial of its motions for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), it said. If the 4th Circuit issues the mandate and the district court proceeds with litigation on damages, “it would not only risk unnecessary or piecemeal litigation” but also impede the 4th Circuit’s ability “to fully resolve the challenges to the judgment,” it said. The 4th Circuit should stay the mandate “to avoid that harm,” it said. A stay also is warranted pending Cox’s cert petition to the Supreme Court, said its motion. This case presents “two exceptionally important questions” on which the 4th Circuit’s rulings “depart from those of other circuits,” it said. The first is whether an internet service provider materially contributes to copyright infringement by declining to disconnect an internet account knowing someone is likely to use it to infringe, it said. On that question, the panel’s decision “creates a three-way circuit split and raises substantial questions implicated by recent Supreme Court law,” it said. The second question is whether a secondary infringer can be adjudged willful based merely on knowledge of another’s direct infringement, it said. The 4th Circuit’s law, settled before the panel decision, conflicts with 8th Circuit law and “bedrock willfulness principles,” it said. If the mandate issues and the district court purports to exercise jurisdiction over further proceedings, Cox would be “irreparably deprived of its opportunity to obtain full and fair appellate review of the initial liability judgment before being subjected to damages proceedings in the district court,” it said. The district court “would be proceeding in parallel with retrial proceedings that purport to settle Cox’s rights and obligations on damages issues, while two appellate courts evaluate whether liability is appropriate in the first instance,” it said.
The opposition of 54 record labels and music publishers to Altice USA’s motion to dismiss their copyright infringement complaint (see 2401300001) “concedes much of what makes their legal claims so untenable,” said Altice’s reply Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall in support of that motion. The labels and publishers allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers. On their direct infringement claims, the plaintiffs “admit they make no specific allegations that anyone transferred an infringing file to anyone else at any time,” said Altice’s reply. “At most, they allege the circumstantial possibility that users used Altice internet to infringe at unidentified times, not that any particular infringing act plausibly occurred on Altice’s network,” it said. On their claims of reproduction of any infringed works, the plaintiffs “admit they can point only to an anonymous user’s mere possession of a file, which could have occurred at any time, using any internet connection,” it said. As for distributions, the plaintiffs “vaguely allege” that their vendor confirmed that a subscriber began to distribute a file, “which at most alleges that the subscriber transmitted some packets of data, not a useable, infringing file,” it said. The plaintiffs’ whole case “is built on the allegation that infringing files were made available, a theory that could never sustain their claims as a matter of law,” it said. On their contributory infringement claims, the plaintiffs “lay their theory bare” said Altice’s reply. If Altice receives as few as two notices alleging that an anonymous person used an Altice internet connection to infringe, even years apart, they allege that Altice has knowledge that someone will use this same connection to infringe again, “and culpably contributes to all such future infringement merely by not cutting the cord on an entire household or business,” it said. Common sense and U.S. Supreme Court case law “both foreclose that theory,” it said. On their vicarious liability claim, the plaintiffs “brush aside” the Feb. 20 decision in the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications (see 2402210027), “which offers point-for-point refutation of the same theory of direct financial benefit” to Altice that the plaintiffs offer here, it said. “They also fail to explain how Altice’s bare right to terminate entire households and businesses from the internet is the equivalent of a right and ability to supervise millions of internet users’ activities online,” it said: “The motion should be granted.”
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should deny Cox Communications’ motion for the four dozen record labels and music publisher plaintiff-appellees in its appeal to pay Cox's appellate costs, said their response in opposition Monday (docket 21-1168). A district court jury found Cox liable for willful infringement of more than 10,000 of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, it said. On appeal, a 4th Circuit panel upheld one basis of liability and remanded for further proceedings on statutory damages (see 2402210027), it said. “Yet Cox now wants the holders of those infringed copyrights to pay Cox’s appellate costs,” including half the costs of the supersedeas bond that Cox used to secure the jury’s damages award, plus nearly $2,100 in filing and printing costs, it said. The 4th Circuit should hold that the parties are responsible for their own costs, it said. Cox’s request for bond costs “fails at the outset,” it said. “Cox’s request proceeds from the fundamentally incorrect premise that it is a prevailing party,” it said. It isn’t because the panel “affirmed the jury’s liability finding,” it said. Though the damages award was vacated, that same award, or more for that matter, “could be reimposed for Cox’s willful contributory infringement on remand,” it said. In a “mixed-result appeal” like this one, courts customarily hold the parties to their own costs, it said. Cox’s bill of cost also is “wildly inflated,” it said. At most, Cox can recover $548.70 in filing and printing costs, it said. Meanwhile, the 4th Circuit, in an order Tuesday, denied the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc of the panel’s Feb. 20 reversal of the jury’s vicarious liability verdict against Cox (see 2403060028), and Cox’s petition for rehearing of the panel’s affirmation of the jury’s finding of willful contributory copyright infringement (see 2403070003). No judge requested a poll under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 on the petitions for rehearing en banc, said the order, which was entered at the direction of the panel of Circuit Judges Pamela Harris, Allison Jones Rushing and Henry Floyd.