Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UMG RECORDINGS, INC., CAPITOL
`RECORDS, LLC, ABKCO MUSIC &
`RECORDS, INC., SONY MUSIC
`ENTERTAINMENT, ARISTA MUSIC,
`ARISTA RECORDS LLC, SONY MUSIC
`ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN, ZOMBA
`RECORDING LLC, ATLANTIC
`RECORDING CORPORATION, ELEKTRA
`ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., LAVA
`RECORDS LLC, RHINO
`ENTERTAINMENT LLC, WARNER
`MUSIC INC., WARNER MUSIC
`INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED,
`AND WARNER RECORDS INC.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. Case No. 21-cv-5050
`)
`) COMPLAINT
`)
`) TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, and ABKCO Music & Records,
`
`Inc. (collectively, the “Universal Plaintiffs”); Plaintiffs Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music,
`
`Arista Records LLC, Sony Music Entertainment US Latin, and Zomba Recording LLC
`
`(collectively, the “Sony Plaintiffs”); and Plaintiffs Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra
`
`Entertainment Group Inc., Lava Records LLC, Rhino Entertainment LLC, Warner Music Inc.,
`
`Warner Music International Services Limited, and Warner Records Inc. (collectively, the
`
`“Warner Plaintiffs,” and together with the Universal Plaintiffs and the Sony Plaintiffs, the
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`“Plaintiffs”) by and through their attorneys Oppenheim + Zebrak, LLP, for their Complaint,
`
`hereby allege, against Defendant Frontier Communications Corporation (“Frontier”), on personal
`
`knowledge as to matters relating to themselves and on information and belief as to all other
`
`matters, as set forth below:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs comprise record companies that produce, manufacture, distribute, sell,
`
`and license commercial sound recordings, both in the United States and internationally. Through
`
`their enormous investments of money, time, and exceptional creative efforts, Plaintiffs and their
`
`recording artists have created, produced, developed, marketed, and distributed musical works
`
`performed by some of the world’s most famous and popular artists. Plaintiffs own and/or control
`
`in whole or in part the copyrights and/or exclusive rights in innumerable sound recordings.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy a massive violation of their rights under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,
`
`501, and 1401 et seq.1
`
`2.
`
`Frontier is one of the largest Internet service providers in the United States. In
`
`2019, Frontier had approximately 3.5 million Internet subscribers. At all pertinent times,
`
`Frontier’s customers paid Frontier substantial subscription fees for access to and use of its high-
`
`speed Internet network, with Frontier offering a tiered pricing structure based on the speed of
`
`service. Frontier markets its high-speed service as enabling subscribers to “[d]ownload 10 songs
`
`in 3.5 seconds.”
`
`3.
`
`At all pertinent times, Frontier knew that its subscribers were using its high-speed
`
`network to illegally download and distribute Plaintiffs’ sound recordings on Frontier’s network.
`
`
`1 All references to infringements and infringing activity below refer to reproductions and/or
`distributions of copyrighted works without authorization. Likewise, all references to infringers
`refer to subscribers who reproduce and/or distribute copyrighted works without authorization.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`Frontier has received hundreds of thousands of copyright infringement notices from copyright
`
`owners, including Plaintiffs, but chose not to act on those notices and address the rampant
`
`infringement on its network.
`
`4.
`
`Through the provision of its services to known infringers, Frontier 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
`
`others whose livelihoods depend upon the lawful sale and distribution of music. Frontier’s
`
`contribution to its subscribers’ infringement is both willful and material, and renders Frontier
`
`liable for its subscribers’ infringing activity.
`
`5.
`
`The infringement notices sent by Plaintiffs and other copyright owners advised
`
`Frontier of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Frontier’s Internet service to illegally
`
`download, copy, and distribute copyrighted works through illicit BitTorrent sites and other
`
`online file-sharing services.
`
`6.
`
`Frontier failed to adequately respond to these notices. It deliberately refused to
`
`take reasonable measures to curb its subscribers from using its service to infringe on the
`
`copyrights of others, including Plaintiffs, despite having direct knowledge of particular
`
`subscribers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement.
`
`7.
`
`It is well-established law that a party may not contribute to infringing behavior
`
`that it knows is occurring. Further, a party with a direct financial interest in the infringing
`
`activity has a responsibility to stop or limit it, when it has the right and practical ability to do so.
`
`Despite its professed commitment to prohibit infringement on its network, Frontier ignored its
`
`own policy and deliberately failed to act on infringement notices. Frontier provided known
`
`repeat infringers with continued access to and use of its network and failed to terminate the
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`accounts of, or otherwise take any meaningful action against, those subscribers. In reality,
`
`Frontier operated its network as an attractive tool and safe haven for infringement.
`
`8.
`
`Frontier derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its subscribers’
`
`infringement. Frontier marketed and promoted the high speeds of its network to attract those
`
`using peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networks to infringe. The unlimited ability to download and
`
`distribute Plaintiffs’ works through Frontier’s service served as a draw for Frontier to attract and
`
`retain serial infringers as customers, and, as a consequence, to charge them higher fees for
`
`increased bandwidth and higher-tiered service. Moreover, by failing to terminate the accounts of
`
`specific recidivist infringers known to Frontier, Frontier obtained a direct financial benefit from
`
`that infringing activity. That financial benefit included improper revenue that Frontier would not
`
`have otherwise received had it terminated those accounts. Frontier decided not to terminate
`
`repeat infringers for one simple reason: it wanted to maintain the revenue stream that it
`
`generated from their accounts.
`
`9.
`
`Frontier’s subscribers’ infringing activity that forms the basis for Plaintiffs’
`
`claims, and for which Frontier is secondarily liable, occurred after Frontier received multiple
`
`notices of those subscribers’ infringing activity. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek relief for copyright
`
`infringement claims that accrued starting on May 1, 2021. Since that date, Frontier’s subscribers
`
`have infringed 2,856 copyrighted works after those particular subscribers were identified to
`
`Frontier in multiple infringement notices, and the infringement is ongoing. While Plaintiffs’
`
`claims accrued during this period of time, Frontier’s knowledge of, and failure to take action
`
`against, repeat infringers began as early as 2013.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Capitol Records, LLC is Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
`
`principal place of business at 1750 N. Vine Street, Los Angeles, California 90068.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 85 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment is a Delaware general partnership, the
`
`partners of which are citizens of Delaware. Sony’s headquarters and principal place of business
`
`are located at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Arista Music is a New York partnership with its principal place of
`
`business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Arista Records LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
`
`principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment US Latin is a Delaware Limited Liability
`
`Company with its principal place of business at 3390 Mary Street, Suite 220, Coconut Grove,
`
`Florida 33133.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Zomba Recording LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with
`
`its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Atlantic Recording Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Lava Records LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
`
`principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Rhino Entertainment LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with
`
`its principal place of business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff Warner Music Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Warner Music International Services Limited is a Limited Liability
`
`Company, organized and existing under the laws of England and Wales, with its principal place
`
`of business at 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5 SW, United Kingdom.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Warner Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 777 South Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffs own and/or control in whole or in part the copyrights and/or exclusive
`
`rights in innumerable sound recordings, including the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A,
`
`which is illustrative and non-exhaustive. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have
`
`been registered, or filed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401, with the U.S. Copyright Office.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`Defendant
`
`27.
`
`Defendant Frontier Communications Corporation is a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the state of Connecticut, with its principal place of business at 401 Merritt 7,
`
`Norwalk, Connecticut 06851. Frontier also maintains substantial operations and offices in New
`
`York.
`
`28.
`
`On April 14, 2020, Frontier and certain affiliated debtor entities filed voluntary
`
`petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the Bankruptcy
`
`Court of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.
`
`29.
`
`On April 30, 2021, Frontier emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the Fifth
`
`Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Frontier Communications Corporation and Its Debtor
`
`Affiliates Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code became effective.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`30.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, which arises under the
`
`Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`31.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Frontier pursuant to New York Civil
`
`Practice Law and Rule (“CPLR”) 301. Frontier has offices in New York, employs thousands of
`
`people in New York, has consented to jurisdiction in the state, and has pervasive corporate ties to
`
`the state that are sufficient to justify the imposition of general jurisdiction here.
`
`32.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Frontier pursuant to CPLR 302.
`
`Frontier transacts business within New York to supply Internet service to customers in this state.
`
`In addition, Frontier has deliberately exploited the New York market, establishing network
`
`operations in this district, selling its services to over 80,000 New York households, and
`
`advertising its Internet service to potential subscribers in the state. Frontier has committed
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`tortious acts within New York, including providing Internet service to New York subscribers
`
`who used Frontier’s network to directly and repeatedly infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights; continuing
`
`to provide Internet service to, and failing to suspend or terminate the accounts of, New York
`
`customers, even after receiving multiple notices of their infringing activity; advertising its high-
`
`speed Internet service in New York to serve as a draw for subscribers who sought faster
`
`download speeds to facilitate their direct and repeated infringements; and/or responding or
`
`failing to respond to repeated notices of copyright infringement directed to infringing subscribers
`
`located in the state. Frontier also has caused injury to Plaintiffs in this state by allowing its
`
`customers to use Frontier’s network to systematically infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, all while
`
`deriving millions of dollars in revenue from interstate commerce.
`
`33.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`34.
`
`Representatives of Plaintiffs have transmitted to Frontier over 20,000 copyright
`
`infringement notices, which fully complied with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`(“DMCA”), detailing specific instances of its subscribers accessing P2P services via Frontier’s
`
`network to unlawfully distribute and copy copyrighted works (“DMCA Notices”). P2P is a 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.
`
`35.
`
`The DMCA Notices identified the unique Internet Protocol (“IP”) address
`
`assigned to each user of Frontier’s network, in addition to the date and time the infringing
`
`activity was detected. Only Frontier, as the provider of the technology and system used to
`
`infringe, had the ability required to match the IP address to a particular subscriber, as well as to
`
`contact that subscriber or terminate that subscriber’s service.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`36.
`
`The DMCA Notices advised Frontier of clear and unambiguous infringing activity
`
`by Frontier’s subscribers—that is, unauthorized downloading and distribution of copyrighted
`
`music. Frontier’s subscribers had no legal basis or justification for downloading or distributing
`
`digital copies of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings to thousands or millions of strangers over the
`
`Internet.
`
`37.
`
`In addition to documenting the sheer volume of the infringing activity on its
`
`network, the DMCA Notices sent to Frontier identified specific subscribers who were flagrant
`
`and serial infringers.
`
`38.
`
`Over the years, Frontier received thousands of infringement notices from other
`
`copyright owners. Plaintiffs are aware of some, but by no means all, of those notices. Those
`
`notices identified thousands of other Frontier subscribers engaged in blatant and repeated
`
`infringement, with more than 4,000 subscribers identified in three or more notices and some
`
`subscribers identified in 100 or more notices.
`
`39.
`
`These examples and countless others amply illustrate that, rather than terminating
`
`repeat infringers—and losing subscription revenues—Frontier consciously chose to look the
`
`other way in order to continue to collect subscriber fees.
`
`40.
`
`During all pertinent times, Frontier had the full legal right, obligation, and
`
`technical ability to prevent or limit the infringements occurring on its network. Under Frontier’s
`
`“Acceptable Use Policy,” which its subscribers agreed to as a condition of using its Internet
`
`service, Frontier was empowered to suspend or terminate a subscriber’s Internet access for a
`
`variety of reasons, including a subscriber’s use of its network or services for “transmitting or
`
`receiving copyright infringing . . . material.” Further, Frontier’s Acceptable Use Policy
`
`expressly provided: “Repeated copyright infringements are grounds for termination of service.”
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`41.
`
`Despite these alleged policies, and despite receiving thousands of DMCA Notices
`
`from Plaintiffs’ representatives, and thousands of similar notices from other copyright owners,
`
`Frontier knowingly permitted specifically identified repeat infringers to continue to use its
`
`network to infringe. Rather than disconnect or otherwise address the Internet access of blatant
`
`repeat infringers, Frontier knowingly continued to provide these subscribers with the Internet
`
`access that enabled them to continue to illegally download or distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
`
`works unabated. Frontier’s provision of high-speed Internet service materially contributed to
`
`these direct infringements.
`
`42.
`
`Frontier’s motivation for refusing to terminate or suspend the accounts of blatant
`
`infringing subscribers was simple: it valued its own profits over its legal responsibilities.
`
`Retaining infringing subscribers provided a direct financial benefit to Frontier. Frontier did not
`
`want to lose subscriber revenue by terminating accounts of infringing subscribers. Frontier did
`
`not want to risk the possibility that account terminations would make its service less attractive to
`
`existing or prospective users. Moreover, infringing subscribers were especially profitable to
`
`Frontier. Illegal P2P activity consumes substantial Internet data usage, leading subscribers to
`
`pay more money for plans with faster Internet speeds and greater data usage. In addition,
`
`Frontier was simply disinterested in devoting sufficient resources to tracking repeat infringers,
`
`responding to infringement notices, and terminating accounts in appropriate circumstances.
`
`Considering only its own pecuniary gain, Frontier ignored and turned a blind eye to flagrant,
`
`repeat infringement by known specific subscribers, thus facilitating and multiplying the harm to
`
`Plaintiffs. And Frontier’s failure to adequately police its infringing subscribers was a draw to
`
`subscribers to purchase Frontier’s services, so that the subscribers could then use those services
`
`to infringe Plaintiffs’ (and others’) copyrights. The specific infringing subscribers identified in
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`the DMCA Notices knew Frontier would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple
`
`notices identifying them as infringers, and they remained Frontier subscribers to continue
`
`illegally downloading copyrighted works.
`
`43.
`
`The consequences of Frontier’s support of and profit from infringement are
`
`obvious and stark. The use of Frontier’s network by its subscribers to copy and distribute
`
`infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works undercuts the legitimate music market,
`
`depriving Plaintiffs, and those recording artists whose works they sell and license, of the
`
`compensation to which they are entitled. Without such compensation, Plaintiffs and their
`
`recording artists have fewer resources available to invest in the further creation and distribution
`
`of high-quality music.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Contributory Copyright Infringement Claim (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`45.
`
`Frontier and its subscribers do not have any authorization, permission, license or
`
`consent to exploit the copyrighted sound recordings at issue.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs are the legal or beneficial owners of the copyrighted works that were
`
`infringed by Frontier’s subscribers and which were duly registered, or filed pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1401, with the U.S. Copyright Office. Using Internet access and services provided by Frontier,
`
`its subscribers unlawfully reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent and other P2P protocols
`
`thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A. The foregoing
`
`activity constitutes direct infringement or an unauthorized act in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,
`
`501, and 1401 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`47.
`
`Frontier is contributorily liable for the direct infringements of its subscribers
`
`described herein. Through the DMCA Notices and other means, Frontier had knowledge that its
`
`network was being used for copyright infringement on a massive scale; Frontier also knew which
`
`specific subscribers engaged in such repeated and flagrant infringement. Nevertheless, Frontier
`
`facilitated, encouraged, and materially contributed to such infringement by continuing to provide
`
`its network and the facilities necessary for its subscribers to commit repeated infringements.
`
`Frontier had the means to withhold that assistance upon learning of specific infringing activity by
`
`specific users but failed to do so.
`
`48.
`
`By purposefully ignoring and turning a blind eye to its subscribers’ flagrant and
`
`repeated infringements, Frontier knowingly caused and materially contributed to the unlawful
`
`reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, including but not limited to those
`
`listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the
`
`United States.
`
`49.
`
`Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings constitutes a
`
`separate and distinct act of infringement.
`
`50.
`
`The foregoing acts of infringement by Frontier have been willful, intentional, and
`
`purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A
`
`represent works infringed by Frontier’s subscribers after Plaintiffs identified those particular
`
`subscribers to Frontier in multiple DMCA Notices.
`
`51.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of its wrongful conduct, Frontier has and will
`
`obtain benefits, including, but not limited to, profits to which Frontier is not entitled.
`
`52.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Frontier’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have
`
`been, and will continue to be, substantially and irreparably harmed in an amount not readily
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`capable of determination. Unless restrained by this Court, Frontier will cause further irreparable
`
`injury to Plaintiffs.
`
`53.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Frontier’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an
`
`amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each of the 2,856 works infringed, or such other
`
`amount as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to
`
`17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Vicarious Copyright Infringement Claim (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`56.
`
`Frontier and its subscribers have no authorization, license or other consent to
`
`exploit the copyrighted sound recordings at issue.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiffs are the legal or beneficial owners of the copyrighted works that were
`
`infringed by Frontier’s subscribers and which were duly registered, or filed pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1401, with the U.S. Copyright Office. Using Internet access and services provided by Frontier,
`
`its subscribers unlawfully reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent and other P2P protocols
`
`thousands of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A. The foregoing
`
`activity constitutes direct infringement or an unauthorized act in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,
`
`501, and 1401 et seq.
`
`58.
`
`Frontier had the legal right and practical ability to supervise and control the
`
`infringing activities that occurred through the use of its network and at all relevant times had a
`
`financial interest in, and derived direct financial benefit from, the infringing use of its network.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`Frontier derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its subscribers’ infringement. The
`
`ability to use Frontier’s high-speed Internet facilities to illegally download Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted works served to draw, maintain, and generate higher fees from paying subscribers to
`
`Frontier’s service. Among other financial benefits, by failing to terminate the accounts of
`
`specific repeat infringers known to Frontier, Frontier earned illicit revenue through user
`
`subscription fees that it would not have otherwise received from repeat infringers, as well as new
`
`subscribers drawn to Frontier’s services for the purpose of illegally downloading copyrighted
`
`works. The specific infringing subscribers identified in the DMCA Notices knew Frontier would
`
`not terminate their accounts despite Frontier’s receipt of multiple notices identifying them as
`
`infringers, and they remained Frontier subscribers to continue illegally downloading copyrighted
`
`works.
`
`59.
`
`Frontier is vicariously liable for the unlawful reproduction and distribution of
`
`Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation
`
`of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States.
`
`60.
`
`Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings constitutes a
`
`separate and distinct act of infringement.
`
`61.
`
`The foregoing acts of infringement by Frontier have been willful, intentional, and
`
`purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A
`
`represent works infringed by Frontier’s subscribers after Plaintiffs identified those particular
`
`subscribers to Frontier in multiple prior DMCA Notices.
`
`62.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of its wrongful conduct, Frontier has and will
`
`obtain benefits, including, but not limited to, profits to which Frontier is not entitled.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 15 of 17
`
`63.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Frontier’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have
`
`been, and will continue to be, substantially and irreparably harmed in an amount not readily
`
`capable of determination. Unless restrained by this Court, Frontier will cause further irreparable
`
`injury to Plaintiffs.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Frontier’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an
`
`amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each of the 2,856 works infringed, or such other
`
`amount as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to
`
`17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against Frontier as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Frontier willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound
`
`recordings;
`
`B.
`
`Issuing a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Frontier, and its
`
`agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all persons,
`
`firms, and corporations acting in active concert or participation with it, from
`
`directly or indirectly reproducing, distributing, publicly displaying, creating
`
`derivative works, otherwise infringing or causing, enabling, facilitating,
`
`encouraging or inducing the reproduction, distribution, public display, creation
`
`of derivative works or other infringement of, any of the respective copyrights
`
`owned or exclusively controlled, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs, whether now
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 16 of 17
`
`in existence or hereinafter created, and ordering that all unlawful copies be
`
`destroyed;
`
`C.
`
`Entering judgment for Plaintiffs against Frontier for statutory damages in an
`
`amount based upon Frontier’s willful acts of infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted sound recordings and unauthorized acts, as alleged above, pursuant to
`
`the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.;
`
`D.
`
`Alternatively, ordering Frontier to render a full and complete accounting to
`
`Plaintiffs of Frontier’s profits, gains, advantages or the value of business
`
`opportunities received from the foregoing acts of infringement and entering
`
`judgment for Plaintiffs against Frontier for all damages suffered by Plaintiffs and
`
`for any profits or gain by Frontier attributable to the infringements of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights and unauthorized acts alleged above in amounts to be determined at
`
`trial;
`
`E.
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505;
`
`F.
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the fullest extent
`
`available, on the foregoing; and
`
`G.
`
`Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05050 Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 17 of 17
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on
`
`all issues so triable in this action.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 8, 2021
` Washington, DC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP
`
` /s/ Matthew J. Oppenheim
`Matthew J. Oppenheim
`Lucy Grace D. Noyola (pro hac vice motion
`forthcoming)
`4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20016
`Tel: 202-480-2999
`matt@oandzlaw.com
`lucy@oandzlaw.com
`
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`17
`
`