Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-365
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`UMG RECORDINGS, INC., CAPITOL
`RECORDS, LLC, WARNER BROS.
`RECORDS INC., SONY MUSIC
`ENTERTAINMENT, ARISTA
`RECORDS LLC, ARISTA MUSIC,
`ATLANTIC RECORDING
`CORPORATION, CAPITOL
`CHRISTIAN MUSIC GROUP, INC.,
`ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
`INC., FONOVISA, INC., FUELED BY
`RAMEN LLC, LAFACE RECORDS
`LLC, NONESUCH RECORDS INC.,
`RHINO ENTERTAINMENT
`COMPANY, ROADRUNNER
`RECORDS, INC., ROC-A-FELLA
`RECORDS, LLC, TOOTH & NAIL, LLC,
`and ZOMBA RECORDING LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS
`NETWORKS LLC
`and
`PATRIOT MEDIA CONSULTING, LLC
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs file their Original Complaint against Defendants and would respectfully show
`
`the Court as follows:
`
`1428389
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 21
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`
`
`This is a case about the ongoing infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights by Grande
`
`Communications Networks LLC (“Grande”),
`
`its management company Patriot Media
`
`Consulting, LLC (“Patriot,” and together with Grande, “Defendants”), and its internet service
`
`users, and Defendants’ failure and refusal to prevent these users from repeatedly infringing those
`
`copyrights.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs are record companies that produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, and
`
`license the great majority of all legitimate commercial sound recordings in this country.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Defendant Grande is a Texas Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) that provides
`
`internet services to customers in Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and other locations throughout the
`
`state. Defendant Patriot is a company that has provided, and continues to provide, management
`
`services to Grande.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Defendants have been notified that their internet customers have engaged in more
`
`than one million infringements of copyrighted works over BitTorrent systems (as described
`
`herein), including tens of thousands of blatant infringements by repeat infringers of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted works. Despite their knowledge of repeat infringements, Defendants have permitted
`
`repeat infringers to use the Grande service to continue to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights without
`
`consequence. Upon information and belief, neither Grande nor its management company Patriot
`
`has taken any meaningful action to discourage this continuing theft, let alone suspend or
`
`terminate subscribers who repeatedly commit copyright infringement through its network, as
`
`required by law. Upon information and belief, this is so even where Defendants have specific
`
`and actual knowledge of those subscribers’ blatant, repeat infringement.
`
`5.
`
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ policy of refusing to take meaningful
`
`action against repeat infringers protects a significant revenue stream that Grande receives every
`
`
`1428389
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 21
`
`month from its many infringing subscribers. Defendants’ effective acquiescence in this
`
`wholesale violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, coupled with their failure to adopt and reasonably
`
`implement a policy to stop repeat infringers, excludes Defendants from the safe harbor
`
`protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). As a result, Defendants’
`
`knowledge of repeat infringements by identified subscribers occurring on Grande’s service,
`
`along with their material contribution to, participation in, enablement of, and profiting from such
`
`infringement, renders Defendants liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement,
`
`and inducement of copyright infringement.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs invest significant amounts of money, time, and effort to discover and
`
`develop recording artists, and to create, manufacture, advertise, promote, sell, and distribute
`
`sound recordings embodying their performances. Defendants’ actions, including their refusal to
`
`prevent their users’ repeat infringement of those works, have caused — and continue to cause —
`
`Plaintiffs significant and irreparable harm. Defendants’ acts of infringement have eroded the
`
`legitimate sales and distribution of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings through physical and
`
`digital channels. Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop
`
`Defendants’ ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, as well as damages resulting from
`
`Defendants’ egregious infringing conduct.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`
`
`This is a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright
`
`infringement under the copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
`
`question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (jurisdiction over copyright actions).
`
`9.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Grande because Grande resides in and
`
`does systematic and continuous business in Texas and in this judicial district. Grande provides a
`
`
`1428389
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 4 of 21
`
`full slate of services in Texas, including internet, TV, and phone service, among others.
`
`Grande’s corporate headquarters are located at 401 Carlson Circle, San Marcos, Texas, within
`
`this judicial district and division. Grande also has stores and service centers within this judicial
`
`district and division, including one at 911 W. Anderson Lane, Suite 123, Austin, TX 78757.
`
`10.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Patriot because Patriot does systematic
`
`and continuous business in Texas and in this judicial district and division, including providing
`
`executive and general counsel services to Grande at and through its corporate headquarters.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`In addition, many of the acts complained of herein occurred in Texas and in this
`
`judicial district. For example, many of the most egregious repeat infringers on Grande’s network
`
`reside in Texas and in this judicial district. Plaintiffs have identified hundreds of accounts of
`
`Grande subscribers suspected of residing in Texas who have repeatedly infringed one or more of
`
`Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c), and/or 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1400(a). A substantial part of the acts of infringement complained of herein occurs or
`
`has occurred in this judicial district, where Grande resides or may be found.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`III.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in Santa Monica, California.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Capitol Records, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Warner Bros. Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Burbank, California.
`
`
`1428389
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 5 of 21
`
`16.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment is a Delaware partnership with its principal
`
`place of business in New York, New York.
`
`17.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Arista Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`18.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Arista Music is a New York partnership with its principal place of
`
`business in New York, New York.
`
`19.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Atlantic Recording Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`20.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Capitol Christian Music Group, Inc. is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.
`
`21.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`22.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Fonovisa, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Santa Monica, California.
`
`23.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Fueled by Ramen LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff LaFace Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`25.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Nonesuch Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in New York, New York.
`
`26.
`
`
`Plaintiff Rhino Entertainment Company is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Burbank, California.
`
`
`1428389
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 6 of 21
`
`27.
`
`
`Plaintiff Roadrunner Records, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in New York, New York.
`
`28.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC is a New York limited liability company,
`
`with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`29.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Tooth & Nail, LLC is Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Santa Monica, California.
`
`30.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Zomba Recording LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`31.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs UMG Recordings, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Warner Bros. Records
`
`Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Records LLC, Arista Music, Atlantic Recording
`
`Corporation, Capitol Christian Music Group, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Fonovisa,
`
`Inc., Fueled by Ramen LLC, LaFace Records LLC, Nonesuch Records Inc., Rhino Entertainment
`
`Company, Roadrunner Records, Inc., Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, Tooth & Nail, LLC, and
`
`Zomba Recording LLC are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs.”
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`32.
`
`
`
`Upon information and belief, Grande is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its headquarters at 401 Carlson Circle, San
`
`Marcos, TX 78666.
`
`33.
`
`
`
`Upon information and belief, Patriot is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its headquarters at 650 College Road
`
`East, Suite 3100, Princeton, NJ 08540. Patriot has provided, and continues to provide,
`
`management services to Grande.
`
`
`
`
`1428389
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 7 of 21
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs’ Extensive and Valuable Copyrights
`
`Plaintiffs are the copyright owners of, or owners of exclusive rights with respect
`
`34.
`
`
`
`to, the great majority of copyrighted sound recordings sold in the United States, including sound
`
`recordings embodying the performances of some of the most popular and successful recording
`
`artists of all time, from Aerosmith to ZZ Top, Michael Jackson to Pink Floyd, Kanye West to
`
`Tony Bennett, Rihanna to Carrie Underwood, and many more. Plaintiffs have invested, and
`
`continue to invest, significant money, time, effort, and creative talent to create, promote, sell, and
`
`license their sound recordings.
`
`35.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs distribute and sell their sound recordings in the form of CDs and other
`
`tangible media throughout the United States, including in Texas. Plaintiffs also sell, distribute,
`
`publicly perform and/or license their sound recordings in the form of digital audio files through
`
`legitimate and authorized digital services, such as iTunes, Amazon, Apple Music, Napster
`
`(formerly Rhapsody), and Spotify, which are available throughout the United States, including in
`
`Texas.
`
`36.
`
`
`
`Under the Copyright Act, Plaintiffs have the exclusive rights, among other things,
`
`to “reproduce the copyrighted work[s],” to “distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
`
`work[s] to the public,” to “perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio
`
`transmission,” as well as to authorize or license such activities. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
`
`37.
`
`
`
`A non-exhaustive, illustrative list of Plaintiffs’ federally copyrighted sound
`
`recordings that Defendants have illegally reproduced, distributed, and/or publicly performed for
`
`their users is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Copyrighted Sound Recordings”). Plaintiffs
`
`have received Certificates of Copyright Registration from the Register of Copyrights for each of
`
`
`1428389
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 8 of 21
`
`these Copyrighted Sound Recordings and/or have submitted complete applications for such
`
`registrations to the Copyright Office.
`
`
`
`Copyright Infringement Accomplished Over BitTorrent Systems
`
`
`
` Massive online infringement of copyrighted music and other digital works is a 38.
`
`significant problem for the record industry, as well as for other content-owning industries.
`
`Historically, infringement occurred largely by an internet user downloading an entire
`
`copyrighted work from a website. Then peer-to-peer (P2P) services, such as Napster and
`
`Grokster, enabled internet users to obtain copyrighted works directly from another internet user,
`
`limiting the effectiveness of measures taken against websites hosting copyrighted works for
`
`download on the internet. Now infringement frequently occurs over BitTorrent networks that
`
`distribute the copyrighted works in small pieces using many users’ computers working together.
`
`BitTorrent systems allow users to join a “swarm” of collaborating host computers to download
`
`and upload copyrighted works from each other simultaneously. When a file is requested,
`
`BitTorrent software identifies multiple computers hosting the identical file, takes small pieces of
`
`the requested file from each of those host computers, and downloads them simultaneously onto
`
`the requester’s computer where they will be reassembled into one file. These pieces become
`
`immediately available for further distribution and download to other infringing users.
`
`39.
`
`
`
`BitTorrent allows large files, such as entire catalogs of recordings, to be
`
`transferred quickly and efficiently, all for free and without authorization from the owner of that
`
`content. Moreover, the BitTorrent systems are designed so that the more files a user offers for
`
`download to others, the faster the user’s own downloads become. In this manner, BitTorrent
`
`systems reward the users who make the most copyrighted works available for download. This
`
`results in a much more efficient system for unauthorized copying – speeding up the process and
`
`
`1428389
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 9 of 21
`
`shrinking the internet connection bandwidth for uploading and downloading. In a 2013 report,
`
`NetNames estimated that 99.97% of non-pornographic files distributed by BitTorrent systems
`
`infringe copyrights, and there is no evidence that this figure has changed since.
`
`40.
`
`
`
`The Copyright Act of 1976 (“Copyright Act”) imposes liability not only on those
`
`that directly infringe copyrights, but also on those that induce or contribute to such infringement,
`
`or are vicariously liable for its occurrence. This is the case whether the infringement pertains to
`
`physical product or digital files over the internet.
`
`41.
`
` When infringement occurs via the use of services provided by ISPs, the DMCA
`
`offers a safe harbor from secondary copyright infringement liability to innocent ISPs that satisfy
`
`certain statutory conditions. As a threshold matter, to be eligible for the safe harbor, an ISP is
`
`required, among other things, to adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for the
`
`termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infringers.
`
`42.
`
`
`
`As noted above, Plaintiffs are well-known record companies. They are in the
`
`business of producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, licensing, and facilitating the
`
`distribution, sale, public performance, and other authorized uses of sound recordings (i.e.,
`
`recorded music) to which they own or control exclusive rights in copyright in the United States.
`
`The considerable artistic quality of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings is well-known in Texas, and
`
`throughout the United States and the world.
`
`43.
`
`
`
`In an effort to combat the massive pirating of their copyrighted works, certain
`
`rights holders have engaged Rightscorp, Inc. (“Rightscorp”). Rightscorp has developed a
`
`technological system that identifies actual infringements and the perpetrators of these
`
`infringements (by IP address, port number, time, and date). It does so by monitoring BitTorrent
`
`systems and extracting information about the infringing activity, including, inter alia, the IP
`
`
`1428389
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 10 of 21
`
`address, the ISP, the infringing content, and the suspected location of the host computer
`
`accessing BitTorrent networks. Rightscorp’s system also has the capability to acquire entire files
`
`from the infringing host computers. Using this system, Rightscorp has notified ISPs, including
`
`Grande, of specific instances of first-time and repeat copyright infringement committed by their
`
`account holders and has requested that the ISPs, including Grande, notify their account holders
`
`of these infringements.
`
`Defendants’ Knowledge of Extensive and Continuing Copyright Infringement by
`Grande’s Subscribers
`
`44.
`
`
`
`Grande provides its subscribers with high-speed internet service. It claims that
`
`
`
`“Grande Internet service provides you with an online experience that delivers unlimited access to
`
`a wealth of resources.” See http://mygrande.com/internet. And, “with speeds up to 1 GB,
`
`Grande offers the fastest Internet speeds in town to support your entire family online at once.”
`
`Id. In exchange for this service, Grande charges its subscribers monthly fees ranging from
`
`approximately $29.99 for 50 Mbps download speeds and 5 Mbps upload speeds, to
`
`approximately $64.99 for 400 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds. Id.
`
`45.
`
`
`After purchasing high-speed internet access from Grande, subscribers can access
`
`BitTorrent networks and upload and download copyrighted works with ease and increasing
`
`speed, depending upon the level of Grande service that the subscribers purchase. Thus, Grande
`
`provides its subscribers with a fully functioning system that allows them to engage in copyright
`
`infringement on a massive scale using BitTorrent networks. And for those subscribers who want
`
`to pirate more and larger files at faster speeds, Grande obliges them in return for higher fees.
`
`The greater the bandwidth its subscribers require for pirating content, the more money Grande
`
`receives.
`
`
`1428389
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 11 of 21
`
`46.
`
`
`
`Having created and (for a monthly fee) provided its subscribers with the site and
`
`facilities to engage in copyright infringement, Grande is required to implement a policy that
`
`effectively addresses repeat infringers if it desires safe harbor protection under the DMCA.
`
`However, Grande has chosen not to adopt and reasonably implement policy for preventing repeat
`
`infringement.
`
`47.
`
`
`Rightscorp has provided Grande with notice of specific infringers using Grande’s
`
`internet service to infringe various copyrighted works. Rightscorp also requested that Grande
`
`terminate the “subscribers and account holders” who are repeat infringers of copyrighted works.
`
`Despite its knowledge of specific repeat infringers of copyrighted works, Grande apparently
`
`refused to do so.
`
`48.
`
`
`The notifications Grande received were based upon a software system Rightscorp
`
`developed and employed. This system identifies specific actual infringements of various
`
`copyrighted works and the users of BitTorrent networks who infringe these copyrighted works.
`
`At its most basic level, the software searches for specific copyrighted content. When it
`
`communicates with a host computer using BitTorrent that acknowledges it has specific
`
`copyrighted content available for unauthorized distribution, the software will log certain
`
`identifying information (e.g., the IP address and port number of the host computer, the date and
`
`time the host computer offered the content, the name of the host computer's ISP, and information
`
`about the infringing file). Upon collecting this information, Rightscorp sends a notice of
`
`infringement to Grande, detailing the exact nature of the infringement(s). Each notice requests
`
`that Grande forward the notice to the corresponding Grande subscriber, because only Grande, as
`
`the ISP, can identify and contact the account holder. Thereafter, Grande’s network is
`
`
`1428389
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 12 of 21
`
`continuously monitored to determine if the same subscriber is a repeat infringer who continues to
`
`infringe copyrighted works. If repeat infringement is detected, Grande is further notified.
`
`49.
`
`
`
`Through this process, Grande has been put on notice and informed of more than
`
`one million infringements, and that thousands of subscriber accounts have engaged in repeated
`
`acts of copyright infringement. Prior to the filing of this complaint, Grande received notice that
`
`1,840 of its customers had each engaged in infringement at least one hundred times. At least
`
`456 of Grande’s customers had generated 500 notices of infringement. More than 208
`
`customers each generated at least 1,000 notices of infringement. And some of Grande’s
`
`customers generated more than 2,000 notices of infringement each. Because Rightscorp can
`
`only observe a small percentage of the overall activity of Grande subscribers, upon information
`
`and belief, the infringement Rightscorp reported to Grande likely is merely a small fraction of
`
`the infringing activity occurring over Grande’s network.
`
`50.
`
`
`
`Grande has had actual and ongoing specific knowledge of
`
`the repeat
`
`infringements by its subscribers of the Copyrighted Sound Recordings occurring through the use
`
`of its service for years. Upon information and belief, through its role in providing management
`
`services to Grande, Patriot, too, has actual and ongoing specific knowledge of these repeat
`
`infringements, including as a result of Rightscorp’s notifications.
`
`51.
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, Defendants have refused to take any meaningful action to
`
`discourage this wrongful conduct, let alone suspend or terminate the accounts of repeat
`
`infringers. The reason that Defendants have not done so is obvious – it would cause Grande to
`
`lose revenue from the subscription fees that these infringing customers pay to Grande.
`
`52.
`
`
`
`By their actions, Defendants have intentionally ignored and continue to ignore the
`
`overwhelming evidence that provides them with actual knowledge of repeat copyright infringers
`
`
`1428389
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 13 of 21
`
`on Grande’s network. Grande cannot have any meaningful, effective repeat infringer policy, let
`
`alone one that is reasonably implemented as required by the DMCA, if it and its management
`
`services provider, Patriot, purposefully ignore notice of repeat infringers sent from copyright
`
`owners (through Rightscorp), who are tracking the repeat infringers on the Grande network and
`
`providing Defendants with actual knowledge of those repeat infringers on a daily basis.
`
`53.
`
`
`
`By ignoring the repeat infringement notifications and refusing to take action
`
`against repeat infringers, Defendants have made an affirmative decision to contribute to known
`
`copyright infringement and to continue reaping the substantial financial benefits in the form of
`
`subscription fees and fees for higher bandwidth. Defendants’ conduct renders them ineligible for
`
`safe harbor immunity from copyright liability under the DMCA.
`
`54.
`
`
`
`Grande intentionally circumvented the DMCA’s requirements by ignoring
`
`infringement notices and failing to take action against users it knew repeatedly and blatantly
`
`committed copyright infringement. Thus, Grande cannot as a matter of law avail itself of the
`
`safe harbor provided for by the DMCA, and is fully liable for these acts of infringement.
`
`55.
`
`
`
`Because it provided executive and general counsel services to Grande, Patriot is
`
`equally liable for Grande’s failure to comply with its legal responsibilities and for the copyright
`
`infringement that resulted from those failures. Upon information and belief, Patriot’s infringing
`
`conduct includes, among other things, formulating and implementing the business policies,
`
`procedures, and practices that provide repeat infringers with continued internet service through
`
`Grande, without consequence.
`
`56.
`
`
`Defendants’ infringing conduct includes providing the facilities and products
`
`necessary for its subscribers to commit direct infringement by delivering uninhibited access to
`
`the internet, as well as the system and technology that allow for the storage and transmission of
`
`
`1428389
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 14 of 21
`
`data constituting the infringing files that comprise the Copyrighted Sound Recordings. In
`
`addition to providing the site and facilities for the infringement, Defendants materially contribute
`
`to subscribers’ direct infringement by providing continued access to account holders they know
`
`to be repeat infringers.
`
`57.
`
`
`Grande directly profits from repeat infringers. Grande collects significant fees
`
`from its subscribers, and subscribers who frequently upload copyrighted content often pay higher
`
`monthly premiums for higher bandwidth. Grande has been notified of thousands of repeat
`
`infringers on the Grande network. Plaintiffs believe the total number of actual repeat infringers
`
`on the Grande network not known to Plaintiffs is drastically higher.
`
`58.
`
`
`Grande touts an internet service that provides its subscribers “with an online
`
`experience that delivers unlimited access to a wealth of resources”-- “with speeds up to 1 GB” --
`
`which Grande advertises as “the fastest Internet speeds in town to support your entire family
`
`online at once.” It makes these representations while knowing that many of its subscribers use
`
`its service for copyright infringement. Yet it willfully takes no action to prevent repeat
`
`infringement. By these acts and omissions, Grande induces the infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights by Grande’s subscribers.
`
`59.
`
`
`
`Despite the continuous and frequent notifications to Defendants of specific
`
`instances of infringement and repeat infringement committed by Grande’s subscribers, and
`
`Defendants’ knowledge thereof, Defendants have refused to take action against any meaningful
`
`number of Grande subscribers who are repeat infringers, and Grande continues to collect
`
`substantial money in subscription fees from accounts of known repeat infringers. Therefore,
`
`Defendants materially contribute to, financially benefit from, and induce the direct copyright
`
`infringement of Grande’s subscribers.
`
`
`1428389
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 15 of 21
`
`V. CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`Count One – Secondary Copyright Infringement Against Grande
`17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`60.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`
`
`59 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`
`
`As detailed herein, users of the Grande service are engaged in repeat and
`
`pervasive infringement of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly
`
`perform their Copyrighted Sound Recordings.
`
`62.
`
`
`
`Through its conduct, Grande knowingly and intentionally induced, enticed,
`
`persuaded, and caused its subscribers to infringe Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Sound Recordings, and
`
`continues to do so, including but not limited to those sound recordings listed in Exhibit A hereto,
`
`in violation of Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
`
`63.
`
`
`
`Through its activities, Grande knowingly and intentionally takes steps that are
`
`substantially certain to result in direct infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Sound Recordings,
`
`and that have resulted in such direct infringement, including but not limited to the direct
`
`infringement of those sound recordings listed in Exhibit A hereto, in violation of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights.
`
`64.
`
`
`
`Despite its knowledge that infringing material is made available to its subscribers
`
`by means of the Grande service, Grande has failed to take reasonable steps to minimize the
`
`infringing capabilities of its service.
`
`65.
`
`
`
`Grande is liable as a contributory copyright infringer for the infringing acts of its
`
`subscribers. Grande has actual and constructive knowledge of the infringing activity of its
`
`subscribers.
`
` Grande knowingly caused and otherwise materially contributed to these
`
`unauthorized reproductions and distributions of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Sound Recordings,
`
`
`1428389
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 16 of 21
`
`including but not limited to those sound recordings listed in Exhibit A hereto, and continues to
`
`do so.
`
`66.
`
`
`
`Grande is vicariously liable for the infringing acts of its subscribers. Grande has
`
`the right and ability to supervise and control the infringing activities that occur through the use of
`
`its service, and at all relevant times has derived a direct financial benefit from the infringement
`
`of Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Grande has refused to take any meaningful action to prevent the
`
`widespread infringement by its subscribers. Indeed, the availability of music – and particularly
`
`Plaintiffs’ music – acts as a powerful draw for users of Grande’s service, who use that service to
`
`download infringing music files using BitTorrent protocols. Grande is therefore vicariously
`
`liable for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Plaintiffs’
`
`Copyrighted Sound Recordings, including but not limited to those sound recordings listed in
`
`Exhibit A hereto.
`
`67.
`
`
`
`Grande’s infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights in each of their Copyrighted Sound
`
`Recordings constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement.
`
`68.
`
`
`
`Grande’s acts of infringement are willful, intentional and purposeful, in disregard
`
`of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs.
`
`69.
`
`
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Grande’s infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to up to the maximum
`
`amount of statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), with respect to each work
`
`infringed, or such other amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`
`70.
`
`
`
`In the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), Plaintiffs
`
`are entitled to their actual damages, including Grande’s profits from infringement, in amounts to
`
`be proven at trial.
`
`
`1428389
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00365-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 17 of 21
`
`71.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant
`
`to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`72.
`
`
`Grande’s conduct has caused, is causing, and, unless enjoined by this Court, will
`
`continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in
`
`money. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Plaintiffs are
`
`entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.
`
`Count Two – Secondary Copyright Infringement Against Patriot
`17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
`
`73.
`
`
`
`72 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`
`
`As described above, users of the Grande service are engaged in repeat and
`
`pervasive infringement of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly
`
`perform their Copyrighted Sound Recordings.
`
`75.
`
`
`
`Upon information and belief, during the relevant period, Patriot was responsible
`
`for management of Grande,
`
`including performing executive,
`
`legal, and compliance
`
`responsibilities.
`
`76.
`
`
`
`Patriot knowingly and intentionally induced, enticed, persuaded, and caused
`
`Grande’s subscribers to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrig