Supreme Court Wipes Piracy Liability Verdict Against Grande Communications (torrentfreak.com) 30
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Following on the heels of the landmark Cox v. Sony ruling, the Supreme Court has vacated the contributory copyright infringement verdict against ISP Grande Communications, ordering the Fifth Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of the new precedent. [...] The order (PDF) effectively removes the case from the Supreme Court docket, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to take another look at its decision in light of the new ruling.
Given the similarities between the two cases, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court came to this conclusion. It is now up to the Fifth Circuit to revisit whether Grande's conduct meets the intent threshold that was established in Cox. That is a significantly higher bar than the one applied in the original verdict, which found that continuing to provide service to known infringers was enough to establish material contribution.
The music companies previously said they sent over a million copyright infringement notices, but that Grande failed to terminate even a single subscriber account in response. However, without proof of active inducement, these absolute numbers carry less weight now. Whether this translates into a win for Grande on remand remains to be seen. For now, however, the original $47 million verdict is further away than ever.
Given the similarities between the two cases, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court came to this conclusion. It is now up to the Fifth Circuit to revisit whether Grande's conduct meets the intent threshold that was established in Cox. That is a significantly higher bar than the one applied in the original verdict, which found that continuing to provide service to known infringers was enough to establish material contribution.
The music companies previously said they sent over a million copyright infringement notices, but that Grande failed to terminate even a single subscriber account in response. However, without proof of active inducement, these absolute numbers carry less weight now. Whether this translates into a win for Grande on remand remains to be seen. For now, however, the original $47 million verdict is further away than ever.
Anything that makes Music Companies Mad (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw labels.
Re: (Score:1)
AI music?
Re: (Score:2)
Electric Company (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not notify their electric company to cut their power to halt infringement?
Or their water company so the house is uninhabitable?
The Courts need to recognize that Internet has become a necessary utility and that the music companies need to deal with the individual directly through the Courts, not in a lazy clandestine way.
Grande seems based.
Re:Electric Company (Score:5, Informative)
The Courts need to recognize that Internet has become a necessary utility and that the music companies need to deal with the individual directly through the Courts, not in a lazy clandestine way.
The record labels were originally suing individual users back in the Napster days [history.com] and it was causing a bit bad PR for them.
I also can't help but think that going after ISPs is something of a cash grab, since I really don't know anyone who even bothers trying to pirate music anymore. It's no longer worth the effort with how cheap music streaming services are.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they? They're about 2x what they were 10 years ago. Maybe it's a case of frog in the slow boiler syndrome?
Re: (Score:2)
It's no longer worth the effort with how cheap music streaming services are.
I think I agree with the sentiment ("it's not worth the effort [to pirate music]"), but disagree that music streaming services are "cheap".
I did the math and at the rate I listen to (acquire/purchase) new music, the break even was about the same as buying an album a month, and that's probably more than I actually get, more like 5-8 a year. I acknowledge that my use case is likely still a bit niche compared to the typical users of say, Spotify.
There are other potential conveniences too: having an actual fil
Re: (Score:2)
The record labels would first sue the ISP and then demand discovery to obtain the ISP's customer base.
They would then drop the first case and, with the newly "discovered" information, file a second case against against the john/jane doe entity without even verifying if the defendant of the case actually was the entity that breached their copyright, merely them owning the IP associated with the activity being enoug
Re: (Score:2)
The Courts need to recognize that Internet has become a necessary utility and that the music companies need to deal with the individual directly through the Courts, not in a lazy clandestine way.
The record labels were originally suing individual users back in the Napster days [history.com] and it was causing a bit bad PR for them.
I also can't help but think that going after ISPs is something of a cash grab, since I really don't know anyone who even bothers trying to pirate music anymore. It's no longer worth the effort with how cheap music streaming services are.
What really scared them was other countries not tolerating that bullshit and in most other countries if you lose a lawsuit like this the other party can come after you for damages. They don't care about negative PR, but a case where they are forced to pay out for having their spurious claims disproved scares the living shit out of them because it sets a precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm sorry but the record labels are the ones that gave their entire catalogues away to streaming cos for absolute dirt; they do not represent the interests of those who wrote or recorded the music and who now have no legal standing over their own work, who were not consulted when their works were sold, due to contracts which no civilized society would deem either legal or acceptable. They should be dissolved and the rights returned to those who actually did the work, and not left in the hands of the shithe
It's too expensive to do that (Score:4, Insightful)
For now what they will probably do is pick off a few people here and there to use as examples and use the full weight of the legal system to ruin their lives. Of course if you know anything about criminal justice harsh punishments are not effective deterrence.
So far the only reliable way to stop piracy has been to make a product that is better and have consumers that can actually afford to consume.
Re: (Score:3)
So far the only reliable way to stop piracy has been to make a product that is better and have consumers that can actually afford to consume.
Music streaming services are pretty cheap. So much so that some people are now making the argument that the artists are getting screwed*. You just can't please everyone.
* I'm not making that argument, though. The entertainment industry is what it is, and anyone trying to make their living by being an entertainer knows what they're in for.
Re: (Score:2)
Observed Traits:
1. Intense focus on specific topics
The user writes frequently and at length about niche technical subjects. Linux desktops, memory management, retro gaming systems, low-level programming, and kernel internals.
This narrow but deep interest in a few topics is consistent with autistic "special interests", where an individual becomes highly knowledgeable and invested in a domain over time.
2. Formal, precise language
Their tone is usually very factual, sometimes pedantic.
For instance, they correct minor inaccuracies, cite specific versions or system behavior, and show a low tolerance for vague statements.
This aligns with the autistic trait of preferring clarity, precision, and correctness, especially in communication.
3. Low concern for social cues or audience tone
Many of their posts are direct or even dismissive, e.g. 'that's completely wrong,' or 'it's not bloated, you just don't know how to configure it.'
They appear less concerned with how their tone might be perceived emotionally.
This could reflect difficulty in modulating tone for social harmony, which is often found in autistic individuals.
4. Literal interpretation of discussions
Some responses suggest they take other users' questions or comments very literally, missing subtext or humor.
This might point to reduced instinct for implied meaning or sarcasm, another common feature in autism.
5. Resistance to ambiguity or generalization
The user often pushes back when others make broad claims or assumptions, offering exact technical explanations or exceptions.
This need for specificity over generality is also in line with certain autistic thinking patterns.
6. Obsessions about mod point in line with certain autistic thinking patterns.
What this could suggest:
There are indeed several traits here that align with what's seen in some people on the autism spectrumfocused interests, literal communication style, detail obsession, and a direct tone unconcerned with social smoothing.
These don't confirm autism, but they do suggest a cognitive style that might be described as "systemizing" (per Simon Baron-Cohen's theory), which is common in neurodivergent individuals.
Lets put aside for a moment that you are literally describing yourself without even realising it (evidently), I would take 10 overly-concise aspies over.. Whatever the fuck it is you're doing. Not even mad. I just hope you get the help you so clearly need.
Re: (Score:2)
They lost today. Sucks to be them.
Re: (Score:2)
> So far the only reliable way to stop piracy has
> been to make a product that is better and have
> consumers that can actually afford to consume.
Isn't is amazing that the record labels continuously fail to understand this? For my part, even as far back is the original launch of the ITMS, my Limewire usage dropped dramatically because I could just buy the one good song on an album and not waste money on the filler. Convenience. At this point, I don't even know HOW long it's been now since I've fi
Re: (Score:3)
The Courts need to recognize that Internet has become a necessary utility
I agree with the decision handed down. I do not agree with legislating from the bench. The courts need to apply the laws as written, not make up new laws. We have a branch of government for making new laws.
Re:Electric Company (Score:5, Insightful)
>"I agree with the decision handed down."
I do too
>"I do not agree with legislating from the bench. The courts need to apply the laws as written, not make up new laws. We have a branch of government for making new laws."
The problem is that the laws are often not well written and too flexible, generic, undefined, or even contradictory. The other problem is when the legislature is too chicken s*** to make a stand on anything and do their jobs. Instead, they just shove all their responsibilities onto unelected agencies with nebulous, overly-broad mandates. That way the legislators can't be held accountable for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I agree with the decision handed down."
Me as well.
"I do not agree with legislating from the bench. The courts need to apply the laws as written, not make up new laws. We have a branch of government for making new laws."
Well, the last time that the Court deferred to Congress, we got 20 years of abuse (Digital locks), extortion (Copyright strikes), multiple lost legitimate businesses (repair services, recycling services, etc.), and political movements (Right to Repair, Stop Killing Games, etc.) that still hasn't resulted in any legislation or seemingly any desire to legislate whatsoever from Congress.
Can't exactly blame the Court for being fed up with all of the lawsuits that Congress refuses to address now c
Re:Electric Company (Score:4, Interesting)
Make illegal phone calls (e.g. fraud, harassment, unsolicited commercial spam, etc.) and they'll cut your telephone off.
Far closer in terms of analogy and technology. And extremely viable.
The electricity company are not directly facilitating or have knowledge or would have reasonable knowledge of your Internet activites.
But your phone number is actively facilitating your phone service, the same way your ISP Is actively facilitating your Internet service. And you would get cut off by your ISP if you were sending spam, or hacking people, etc.
Either the ISP has NO business doing that (and thus they couldn't cut you off for sending spam) or they are monitoring and able to cut you off (in which case they could cut you off for piracy).
A million notices? (Score:2)
Something tells me that if these companies had to cancel 1M+ subscribers they'd go out of business. That doesn't really solve anybody's problem, so what would be the point?
Re: (Score:3)
Something tells me that if these companies had to cancel 1M+ subscribers they'd go out of business. That doesn't really solve anybody's problem, so what would be the point?
It seems highly likely that a smaller number of subscribers would have been the source of multiple notices (and it would have been up to Grande Communications to determine which subscriber was associated with the notices IP addresses and timestamps).
Re: (Score:2)
If you kept sending spam email, your email account would be terminated. If you used your ISP connection to do it, they would start terminating your connection. Whether that was personal, business, paid or free.
How is that different to keeping using your ISP connection to download illegal stuff, once the ISP has been notified of that?
Are we saying that unsolicited commercial email is somehow significantly more damaging to people and incurring a greater commercial cost than pirating movies?
Re: (Score:2)
Sending spam gets the email provider or ISP on blocklists. This adversely affects their other customers' ability to send email, and ultimately affects the bottom line when those customers go elsewhere to get reliable email. So it's in the provider's interest to disallow spam. As far as I'm aware, pirating music won't get any other customers blocked from services they need to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, piracy is a one and done thing. I.e. There's no guarantee that for any two copyrighted materials being pirated that the person behind 198.51.100.3 is the same person. Even at the same time, due to things like NAT, and the courts
cuz things were starting to look a bit dystopian (Score:1)
it's nice that things are getting obvious enough that even the supreme court - nay, even THIS supreme court - can see it
The sand people (RIAA) are easily startled (Score:2)
but they'll be back in greater numbers:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/04/06/music-industry-site-blocking-legislation/
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, nope nosirree.