Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 19-CV-874
`
`WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, BAD
`BOY RECORDS LLC, ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., FUELED BY
`RAMEN LLC, NONESUCH RECORDS INC., ROADRUNNER RECORDS, INC., WEA
`INTERNATIONAL
`INC., WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC,
`INC., WARNER-
`TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP., WB MUSIC CORP., W.B.M. MUSIC CORP.,
`UNICHAPPELL MUSIC INC., RIGHTSONG MUSIC INC., COTILLION MUSIC, INC.,
`INTERSONG U.S.A., INC., SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, ARISTA MUSIC,
`ARISTA RECORDS LLC, LAFACE RECORDS LLC, PROVIDENT LABEL GROUP,
`LLC, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN, VOLCANO ENTERTAINMENT
`III, LLC, ZOMBA RECORDINGS LLC, SONY/ATV MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC, EMI AL
`GALLICO MUSIC CORP., EMI ALGEE MUSIC CORP., EMI APRIL MUSIC INC., EMI
`BLACKWOOD MUSIC INC., COLGEMS-EMI MUSIC INC., EMI CONSORTIUM
`MUSIC PUBLISHING INC. D/B/A EMI FULL KEEL MUSIC, EMI CONSORTIUM
`SONGS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A EMI LONGITUDE MUSIC, EMI
`ENTERTAINMENT WORLD INC. D/B/A EMI FORAY MUSIC, EMI JEMAXAL MUSIC
`INC., EMI FEIST CATALOG INC., EMI MILLER CATALOG INC., EMI MILLS MUSIC,
`INC., EMI UNART CATALOG INC., EMI U CATALOG INC., JOBETE MUSIC CO.
`INC., STONE AGATE MUSIC, SCREEN GEMS-EMI MUSIC INC., STONE DIAMOND
`MUSIC CORP., UMG RECORDINGS, INC., CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, UNIVERSAL
`MUSIC CORP., UNIVERSAL MUSIC – MGB NA LLC, UNIVERSAL MUSIC
`PUBLISHING INC., UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING AB, UNIVERSAL MUSIC
`PUBLISHING LIMITED, UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING MGB LIMITED,
`UNIVERSAL MUSIC – Z TUNES LLC, ISLAND MUSIC LIMITED, POLYGRAM
`PUBLISHING, INC., AND SONGS OF UNIVERSAL, INC.
`
`
`
` v.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Records Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, Bad Boy Records
`
`LLC, Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Fueled By Ramen LLC, Nonesuch Records Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 27
`
`Roadrunner Records, Inc., WEA International Inc., Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Warner-
`
`Tamerlane Publishing Corp., WB Music Corp., W.B.M. Music Corp., Unichappell Music Inc.,
`
`Rightsong Music Inc., Cotillion Music, Inc., and Intersong U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, the “Warner
`
`Plaintiffs”); and Plaintiffs Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music, Arista Records LLC, LaFace
`
`Records LLC, Provident Label Group, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment US Latin, Volcano
`
`Entertainment III, LLC, and Zomba Recordings LLC (collectively, the “Sony Music Plaintiffs”);
`
`and Plaintiffs Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, EMI Al Gallico Music Corp., EMI Algee Music
`
`Corp., EMI April Music Inc., EMI Blackwood Music Inc., Colgems-EMI Music Inc., EMI
`
`Consortium Music Publishing Inc. d/b/a EMI Full Keel Music, EMI Consortium Songs, Inc.,
`
`individually and d/b/a EMI Longitude Music, EMI Entertainment World Inc. d/b/a EMI Foray
`
`Music, EMI Jemaxal Music Inc., EMI Feist Catalog Inc., EMI Miller Catalog Inc., EMI Mills
`
`Music, Inc., EMI Unart Catalog Inc., EMI U Catalog Inc., Jobete Music Co. Inc., Stone Agate
`
`Music, Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc., and Stone Diamond Music Corp. (collectively, the
`
`“Sony/ATV and EMI Plaintiffs”); and UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Universal
`
`Music Corp., Universal Music – MGB NA LLC, Universal Music Publishing Inc., Universal
`
`Music Publishing AB, Universal Music Publishing Limited, Universal Music Publishing MGB
`
`Limited, Universal Music – Z Tunes LLC, Island Music Limited, PolyGram Publishing, Inc., and
`
`Songs of Universal, Inc. (collectively, the “Universal Plaintiffs,” and with the Warner Plaintiffs,
`
`Sony Music Plaintiffs, and Sony/ATV and EMI Plaintiffs, the “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint
`
`against defendant Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter” or “Defendant”), allege, on personal
`
`knowledge as to matters relating to themselves and on information and belief as to all other matters,
`
`as set forth below:
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 27
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs are record companies that produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, and
`
`license commercial sound recordings, and music publishers that acquire, license, and otherwise
`
`exploit musical compositions, both in the United States and internationally. Through their
`
`enormous investments of money, time, and exceptional creative efforts, Plaintiffs and their
`
`representative recording artists and songwriters have developed and marketed some of the world’s
`
`most famous and popular music. Plaintiffs own and/or control exclusive rights to the copyrights
`
`to some of the most famous sound recordings performed by classic artists and contemporary
`
`superstars, as well as the copyrights to large catalogs of iconic musical compositions and modern
`
`hit songs. Their investments and creative efforts have shaped the musical landscape as we know
`
`it, both in the United States and around the world.
`
`2.
`
`Charter is one of the largest Internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the country. It
`
`markets and sells high-speed Internet services to consumers nationwide. Through the provision of
`
`those services, Charter has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive
`
`copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers, causing great harm to Plaintiffs,
`
`their recording artists and songwriters, and others whose livelihoods depend upon the lawful
`
`acquisition of music. Charter’s contribution to its subscribers’ infringement is both willful and
`
`extensive, and renders Charter equally liable. Indeed, for years, Charter deliberately refused to
`
`take reasonable measures to curb customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others’
`
`copyrights, including Plaintiffs’ copyrights—even after Charter became aware of particular
`
`customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement. Plaintiffs’ representatives (as well
`
`as others) sent hundreds of thousands of statutory infringement notices to Charter, under penalty
`
`of perjury. Those notices advised Charter of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Charter’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 27
`
`Internet service to illegally download, copy, and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted music through
`
`BitTorrent and other online file-sharing services. Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this
`
`massive infringement, Charter did nothing, choosing to prioritize its own profits over its legal
`
`obligations.
`
`3.
`
`It is well-established law that a party may not assist someone it knows is engaging
`
`in copyright infringement. Further, when a party has a direct financial interest in the infringing
`
`activity, and the right and practical ability to stop or limit it, that party must act. Ignoring and
`
`flouting those basic responsibilities, Charter deliberately turned a blind eye to its subscribers’
`
`infringement. Charter failed to terminate or otherwise take meaningful action against the accounts
`
`of repeat infringers of which it was aware. Despite its professed commitment to taking action
`
`against repeat offenders, Charter routinely thumbed its nose at Plaintiffs by continuing to provide
`
`service to subscribers it knew to be serially infringing copyrighted sound recordings and musical
`
`compositions. In reality, Charter operated its service as an attractive tool and safe haven for
`
`infringement.
`
`4.
`
`Charter has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’
`
`infringement. The unlimited ability to download and distribute Plaintiffs’ works through Charter’s
`
`service has served as a draw for Charter to attract, retain, and charge higher fees to subscribers.
`
`By failing to terminate the accounts of specific recidivist infringers known to Charter, Charter
`
`obtained a direct financial benefit from its subscribers’ continuing infringing activity. That
`
`financial benefit included improper revenue that it would not have received had it appropriately
`
`shut down those accounts. Charter decided not to terminate infringers because it wanted to
`
`maintain the revenue that is generated from their accounts.
`
`5.
`
`The infringing activity of Charter’s subscribers that is the subject of Plaintiffs’
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 27
`
`claims, and for which Charter is secondarily liable, occurred after Charter received multiple
`
`notices of each subscriber’s infringing activity. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek relief for claims that
`
`accrued between March 24, 2013 and May 17, 2016 for infringement of works by Charter
`
`subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Charter in multiple infringement
`
`notices.1 These claims have been preserved through tolling agreements entered into with Charter
`
`in March, April, and June 2016, as applicable.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`6.
`
`This is a civil action in which Plaintiffs seek damages for copyright infringement
`
`under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ copyright
`
`infringement claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Charter pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-
`
`1-124. Charter continuously and systematically transacts business in Colorado and maintains
`
`sizable operations in the state—employing thousands of people, and providing an array of services
`
`to customers, within the state. In addition to its physical presence in the state, Charter has
`
`deliberately exploited the Colorado market, establishing significant network management
`
`operations in this district, selling its services to over 100,000 Colorado customers, and advertising
`
`its “blazing-fast Internet speeds” to potential subscribers in the state.
`
`9. Moreover, Charter has engaged in substantial activities purposefully directed at
`
`Colorado from which Plaintiffs’ claims arise, including providing Internet service to Colorado
`
`
`1 Specifically, the Universal Plaintiffs seek relief for claims that accrued on or after March 24,
`2013; the Sony Music Plaintiffs and Warner Plaintiffs seek relief for claims that accrued on or
`after April 18, 2013; and the Sony/ATV and EMI Plaintiffs seek relief for claims that accrued on
`or after June 15, 2013.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 27
`
`subscribers who used Charter’s network to directly and repeatedly infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights;
`
`continuing to provide Internet service to, and failing to suspend or terminate the accounts of,
`
`Colorado customers, even after receiving multiple notices of their infringing activity; advertising
`
`its high-speed Internet services in Colorado to serve as a draw for subscribers who sought faster
`
`download speeds to facilitate their direct and repeated infringements; employing individuals within
`
`Colorado with responsibility for overseeing its network and subscriber use policies; and/or
`
`responding or failing to respond to repeated notices of copyright infringement directed to
`
`infringing subscribers located in the state.
`
`10. Much of the misconduct alleged in this Complaint arises directly from Charter’s
`
`forum-directed activities—specifically, repeated acts of infringement by specific subscribers using
`
`Charter’s network; Charter’s awareness of those activities; Charter’s receipt of and failure to act
`
`in response to Plaintiffs’ notices of infringement; and Charter’s failure to take reasonable measures
`
`to terminate repeat infringers.
`
`11. Many of the acts complained of herein occurred in Colorado and in this judicial
`
`district. For example, a number of egregious repeat infringers who are Charter subscribers reside
`
`in and infringed Plaintiffs’ rights in Colorado and this judicial district, using Internet service
`
`provided by Charter in the state. Indeed, Plaintiffs have identified over a hundred Charter
`
`subscribers who appear to reside in Colorado and who have repeatedly infringed Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted works. For example, one Charter subscriber believed to be located in Grand Junction,
`
`Colorado, with the IP address 72.175.144.149 at the time of the infringing conduct, was identified
`
`in infringement notices 63 times between June 26, 2014 and September 28, 2014. Another Charter
`
`subscriber believed to be located in Grand Junction, Colorado, with the IP address 98.127.105.135
`
`at the time of infringement, was identified in infringement notices 54 times between May 29, 2014
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 27
`
`and March 29, 2015. Yet another Charter subscriber believed to be located in Montrose, Colorado,
`
`with the IP address 184.167.217.19 at the time of infringement, was identified in infringement
`
`notices 53 times between September 11, 2014 and January 12, 2015. Still another Charter
`
`subscriber believed to be located in Canon City, Colorado, with the IP address 72.174.161.193 at
`
`the time of infringement, was identified in infringement notices 50 times between October 1, 2014
`
`and March 29, 2015.
`
`12. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(a). A
`
`substantial part of the acts of infringement, and other events and omissions complained of herein,
`
`occur or have occurred in this district, and this is a district in which Charter resides or may be
`
`found.
`
`PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COPYRIGHTED MUSIC
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs are the copyright owners of, and/or control exclusive rights with respect
`
`to, millions of sound recordings (i.e., recorded music) and/or musical compositions (i.e., the songs
`
`embodied in sound recordings), including by some of the most prolific and well-known
`
`songwriters and recording artists throughout the world.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Warner Bros. Records Inc. (“WBR”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Atlantic Recording Corporation (“Atlantic”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Bad Boy Records LLC (“Bad Boy”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. (“Elektra”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 27
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Fueled By Ramen LLC (“FBR”) is a Delaware Limited Liability Company
`
`with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Nonesuch Records Inc. (“Nonesuch”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Roadrunner Records, Inc. (“Roadrunner”) is a New York corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff WEA International Inc. (“WEA”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment (“Sony”) is a Delaware general partnership, the
`
`partners of which are citizens of New York and Delaware. Sony’s headquarters and principal place
`
`of business are located at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Arista Music (“Arista Music”) is a New York partnership with its principal
`
`place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Arista Records LLC (“Arista Records”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff LaFace Records LLC (“LaFace”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Provident Label Group, LLC (“Provident”) is a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 741 Cool Springs Boulevard, Franklin,
`
`Tennessee 37067.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment US Latin (“Sony Latin”) is a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 3390 Mary Street, Suite 220, Coconut
`
`Grove, Florida 33133.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 27
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Volcano Entertainment III, LLC (“Volcano”) is a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Zomba Recording LLC (“Zomba”) is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc. (“UMG”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Capitol Records, LLC (“Capitol Records”) is Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 1750 N. Vine Street, Los Angeles, California
`
`90068.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs WBR, Atlantic, Bad Boy, Elektra, FBR, Nonesuch, Roadrunner, WEA,
`
`Sony, Arista Music, Arista Records, LaFace, Provident, Sony Latin, Volcano, Zomba, UMG, and
`
`Capitol Records are referred to herein collectively as the “Record Company Plaintiffs.”
`
`33.
`
`The Record Company Plaintiffs are some of the largest record companies in the
`
`world, engaged in the business of producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, licensing, and
`
`otherwise exploiting sound recordings in the United States through various media. They invest
`
`substantial money, time, effort, and talent in creating, advertising, promoting, selling, and licensing
`
`unique and valuable sound recordings embodying the performances of their exclusive recording
`
`artists.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. (“Warner/Chappell”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles,
`
`California 90021.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. (“Warner-Tamerlane”)
`
`is a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 27
`
`California corporation with its principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los
`
`Angeles, California 90021.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff WB Music Corp. (“WB Music”) is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff W.B.M. Music Corp. (“W.B.M.”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Unichappell Music Inc. (“Unichappell”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff Rightsong Music Inc. (“Rightsong Music”) is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Cotillion Music, Inc. (“Cotillion”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Intersong U.S.A., Inc. (“Intersong”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC (“Sony/ATV”) is a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Al Gallico Music Corp. (“EMI Al Gallico”), an affiliate of
`
`Sony/ATV, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue,
`
`New York, New York 10010.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Algee Music Corp. (“EMI Algee”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 27
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff EMI April Music Inc. (“EMI April”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York,
`
`New York 10010.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Blackwood Music Inc. (“EMI Blackwood”), an affiliate of
`
`Sony/ATV, is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison
`
`Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Colgems-EMI Music Inc. (“EMI Colgems”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is
`
`a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York,
`
`New York 10010.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Consortium Music Publishing Inc. d/b/a EMI Full Keel Music (“EMI
`
`Full Keel”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New York corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Consortium Songs, Inc., individually and d/b/a EMI Longitude Music
`
`(“EMI Longitude”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New York corporation with its principal place
`
`of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`50.
`
`EMI Entertainment World Inc. d/b/a EMI Foray Music (“EMI Entertainment”), an
`
`affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison
`
`Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`51.
`
`EMI Jemaxal Music Inc. (“EMI Jemaxal”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Feist Catalog Inc. (“EMI Feist”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New
`
`York corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 27
`
`10010.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Miller Catalog Inc. (“EMI Miller”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`New York corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Mills Music, Inc. (“EMI Mills”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff EMI Unart Catalog Inc. (“EMI Unart”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New
`
`York corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff EMI U Catalog Inc. (“EMI U”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a New York
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Jobete Music Co. Inc. (“Jobete”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a Michigan
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
`
`10010. Plaintiff Stone Agate Music (“Stone Agate”) is a division of Jobete.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc. (“Gems-EMI”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV,
`
`is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York,
`
`New York 10010.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff Stone Diamond Music Corp. (“Stone”), an affiliate of Sony/ATV, is a
`
`Michigan corporation with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New
`
`York 10010.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Corp. (“UMC”) is a California corporation with its
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 27
`
`principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music – MGB NA LLC (“MGB”) is a California Limited
`
`Liability Company with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica,
`
`California 90404.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing Inc. (“Universal Music Publishing”) is a
`
`California corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa
`
`Monica, California 90404.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing AB (“AB”) is a company organized under the
`
`laws of Sweden.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing Limited (“Publishing Limited”) is a company
`
`incorporated under the laws of England and Wales.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music Publishing MGB Limited (“MGB Limited”) is a
`
`company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff Universal Music – Z Tunes LLC (“Z Tunes”) is a California corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff Island Music Limited (“Island”) is a company incorporated under the laws
`
`of England and Wales.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff Polygram Publishing, Inc. (“Polygram Publishing”) is a California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica,
`
`California 90404.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff Songs of Universal, Inc. (“Songs of Universal”) is a California corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs Warner/Chappell, Warner-Tamerlane, WB Music, W.B.M., Unichappell,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 27
`
`Rightsong Music, Cotillion, Intersong, Sony/ATV, EMI Al Gallico, EMI Algee, EMI April, EMI
`
`Blackwood, EMI Colgems, EMI Full Keel, EMI Longitude, EMI Entertainment, EMI Jemaxal,
`
`EMI Feist, EMI Miller, EMI Mills, EMI Unart, EMI U, Jobete, Stone Agate, Gems-EMI, Stone,
`
`UMC, MGB, Universal Music Publishing, AB, Publishing Limited, MGB Limited, Z Tunes,
`
`Island, Polygram Publishing, and Songs of Universal are referred to herein collectively as the
`
`“Music Publisher Plaintiffs.”
`
`71.
`
`The Music Publisher Plaintiffs are leading music publishers engaged in the business
`
`of acquiring, owning, publishing, licensing, and otherwise exploiting copyrighted musical
`
`compositions. Each invests substantial money, time, effort, and talent to acquire, administer,
`
`publish, license, and otherwise exploit such copyrights, on its own behalf and on behalf of
`
`songwriters and others who have assigned exclusive copyright interests to the Music Publisher
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiffs own and/or control in whole or in part the copyrights and/or exclusive
`
`rights in innumerable popular sound recordings and musical compositions, including the sound
`
`recordings listed on Exhibit A and musical compositions listed on Exhibit B, both of which are
`
`illustrative and non-exhaustive. All of the sound recordings and musical compositions listed on
`
`Exhibits A and B have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
`
`CHARTER AND ITS ACTIVITIES
`
`73.
`
`Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
`
`principal place of business at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. Charter also
`
`maintains substantial operations and offices in Colorado, including in Greenwood Village,
`
`Colorado.
`
`74.
`
`Charter is one of the largest ISPs in the country. In 2015, Charter had more than 5
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 27
`
`million subscribers and today has more than 22 million subscribers. At all pertinent times,
`
`Charter’s customers, including those in Colorado, have paid substantial subscription fees for
`
`access to its high-speed Internet network, with Charter offering a tiered pricing structure whereby
`
`a subscriber can have even higher downloading speeds for a higher monthly fee.
`
`75. Many of Charter’s customers are motivated to subscribe to Charter’s service
`
`because it allows them to download music and other copyrighted content—including unauthorized
`
`content—as efficiently as possible. Accordingly, in its consumer marketing material, including
`
`material directed to Colorado customers, Charter has touted how its service enables subscribers to
`
`download and upload large amounts of content at “blazing-fast Internet speeds.” Charter has told
`
`existing and prospective customers that its high-speed service enables subscribers to “download
`
`just about anything instantly,” and subscribers have the ability to “download 8 songs in 3 seconds.”
`
`Charter has further told subscribers that its Internet service “has the speed you need for everything
`
`you do online.” In exchange for this service, Charter has charged its customers monthly fees
`
`ranging in price based on the speed of service.
`
`76.
`
`At the same time, Charter has consistently and actively engaged in network
`
`management practices to suit its own purposes. This includes monitoring for, and taking action
`
`against, spam and other unwanted activity that might otherwise interfere with its provision of
`
`Internet service to its subscribers. But Charter has gone out of its way not to take action against
`
`subscribers engaging in repeated copyright infringement, for its own financial benefit and at the
`
`expense of the underlying owners and controllers of copyright interests, including Plaintiffs,
`
`ultimately forcing Plaintiffs to bring this litigation.
`
`77.
`
`At all pertinent times, Charter knew that its subscribers routinely used its networks
`
`for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, especially music. As described
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 27
`
`below, Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Charter that many of its subscribers were actively utilizing its
`
`service to infringe their works. Those notices gave Charter the specific identities of its infringing
`
`subscribers, referred to by their unique Internet Protocol (or “IP”) addresses. Yet Charter
`
`persistently turned a blind eye to the massive infringement of Plaintiffs’ works occurring over its
`
`network. Charter condoned the illegal activity because it was popular with subscribers and acted
`
`as a draw to attract and retain new and existing subscribers. Charter’s customers, in turn,
`
`purchased more bandwidth and continued using Charter’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights. Charter undoubtedly recognized that if it terminated or otherwise prevented repeat
`
`infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such use,
`
`Charter would enroll fewer new subscribers, lose existing subscribers, and ultimately lose revenue.
`
`For those account holders and subscribers who wanted to download files illegally at faster speeds,
`
`Charter obliged them in exchange for higher rates. In other words, the greater the bandwidth its
`
`subscribers required for pirating content, the more money Charter made.
`
`THE GLOBAL P2P PIRACY PROBLEM
`
`General Landscape
`
`78. While the digital age has brought many benefits, one notable exception is its
`
`facilitation of unprecedented online piracy of music and other copyrighted works. As the Supreme
`
`Court has recognized, the level of copyright infringement on the Internet is “staggering.” Metro-
`
`Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 923 (2005).
`
`79.
`
`Use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) distribution systems has dominated unauthorized
`
`downloading and distribution of copyrighted music. P2P is a generic term used to refer to a
`
`decentralized network of users whereby each Internet-connected participant (i.e., a “peer” or a
`
`“node”) can act as both a supplier and consumer of content files. Early P2P services, such as
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 27
`
`Napster and KaZaA, have been replaced by even more robust and efficient systems, most notably
`
`a protocol called “BitTorrent.” The online piracy committed via BitTorrent is stunning in nature,
`
`speed, and scope. Utilizing a BitTorrent client—essentially a tool that manages the uploading and
`
`downloading of files through BitTorrent technology—persons connected to the Internet can locate,
`
`access, and download copyrighted content from other peers in the blink of an eye. They download
`
`copyright