Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT

(US) LLC, UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,
CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, CONCORD
MUSIC GROUP, INC., and CONCORD
BICYCLE ASSETS, LLC,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-471
Plaintiffs,

v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ALTICE USA, INC., and

CSC HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs BMG Rights Management (US) LLC (“BMG”), UMG Recordings, Inc., and

Capitol Records, LLC (UMG Recordings, Inc., and Capitol Records, LLC, collectively “UMG”),

and Concord Music Group, Inc., and Concord Bicycle Assets, LLC (Concord Music Group, Inc.

and Concord Bicycle Assets, LLC, collectively “Concord”) (BMG, UMG, and Concord

collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, for their Complaint against Altice USA,

Inc., and CSC Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Altice” or “Defendants”), hereby allege as follows:

Nature of the Case

1. The Supreme Court recognized more than fifteen years ago that the level of

copyright infringement on the internet was “staggering.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v.

Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 923 (2005). As broadband access has expanded, speeds have

increased, and individuals have become more tech savvy, online piracy of music and other media

has become easier and easier.

 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 2

2. The predominant means of music and other media piracy are so-called peer-to-peer

(“P2P”) file distribution systems. P2P is a generic term used to refer to technological systems that

facilitate connecting internet users (a “peer” or “node”) where the user can act as both a supplier

and consumer of content.

3. Early P2P services, such as Napster and KaZaA were centralized, and the owners

or operators of such services could be made subject to enforcement by copyright owners whose

rights were infringed by their users. But such services have been supplanted by more robust and

efficient decentralized systems, most notably those that use a file-sharing protocol called

“BitTorrent.” The online piracy committed via BitTorrent is stunning in nature, speed, and scope.

Utilizing a BitTorrent client—a software tool that implements the BitTorrent protocol—internet

users can locate, access, and download copyrighted content from other peers in the blink of an eye.

All without authorization from or payment to copyright owners or creators.

4. The BitTorrent protocol enables a uniquely efficient means for facilitating illegal

file sharing. On earlier P2P networks, an internet-connected user who wanted to download a file

would have to locate another internet-connected peer on the network (like Napster) who had a

copy of the desired file and then download the entire file from that peer. BitTorrent facilitates

much more efficient downloading by breaking each file into multiple “chunks” or parts and

allowing users to download each chunk concurrently from a different peer. Once a user has

downloaded all the chunks, the file is automatically reassembled into the complete form and

available for playback. This approach enables users to begin disseminating the copyrighted content

even before the complete file has downloaded, which can exponentially increase the availability

of unauthorized copies of pirated works to millions of people who use BitTorrent technology.

2
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 3

5. Not surprisingly, then, BitTorrent has been widely used as a vehicle to distribute

without authorization (and thereby infringe) copyrighted works. A January 2022 report (assessing

traffic in 2021) from Sandvine found that BitTorrent communications accounted for nearly 3% of

all internet traffic worldwide—more than Google. 1 That same report indicated that BitTorrent

communication was the number one source of upstream traffic.

6. And numerous analyses have found that as individuals found themselves

increasingly confined to their homes and the internet amid the height of COVID-19 lockdowns,

piracy increased precipitously. 2

1
Phenomena: The Global Internet Phenomena Report, SANDVINE, Jan. 2022,
https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/Sandvine_Redesign_2019/Downloads/2022/Phenomena%20Reports/GIPR%2020
22/Sandvine%20GIPR%20January%202022.pdf?hsCtaTracking=18fff708-438e-4e16-809d-
34c3c89f4957%7C067d9d28-ef90-4645-9d46-c70d10279247
2
Bode, “Movie and TV Piracy Sees an ‘Unprecedented’ Spike During Quarantine,” VICE (April 27, 2020),
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dm7xb/movie-and-tv-piracy-sees-an-unprecedented-spike-during-quarantine;
Gault, “Internet Piracy is Surging,” Researchers Say, VICE (Jan. 28, 2022),
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93bd8v/internet-piracy-is-surging-researchers-say.
3
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 4

7. Plaintiffs are record companies that discover and develop recording artists and

produce, manufacture, distribute, sell, and license commercial sound recordings, and music

publishers that develop songwriters and acquire, license, and otherwise exploit musical

compositions, both in the United States and internationally. Plaintiffs and the recording artists and

songwriters they represent respectively have developed, marketed, and commercially released a

significant amount of popular music. That has not only required investments of money, time, and

effort, but also enormous creativity. Plaintiffs own or control exclusive rights to the copyrights in

well-known sound recordings from a wide array of genres and eras, as well as the copyrights to

large catalogs of iconic and modern hit musical compositions and sound recordings. Plaintiffs’

investments and creative efforts have shaped the musical landscape of the past and present, both

in the United States and around the world.

8. As one of the largest internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the country, Altice has

marketed and sold high-speed internet services to consumers in at least 21 states across the country,

including Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West

Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas,

Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Idaho.

9. Through the provision of high-speed internet services, Altice has knowingly

contributed to and earned substantial profits from, copyright infringement committed by thousands

of its subscribers. The infringement that Altice has abided, profited from, and materially

contributed to has injured Plaintiffs, their recording artists and songwriters, and others whose

livelihoods depend on the proper licensing of music and the ability to be fairly compensated for

the use of their music and earn a living from their vocations. Altice’s contribution to its

subscribers’ infringement is both willful and extensive, and renders Altice liable for its
4
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 5

subscribers’ conduct. Indeed, for years, Altice deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to

curb its customers from using its service to infringe copyrights, including Plaintiffs’ copyrights—

even after Altice was provided specific and detailed notice of particular customers engaging in

repeated, and prolonged acts of infringement. Millions of infringements by users of Altice’s

internet services have been detected, and Altice has been given detailed and specific written notice

of those infringements. Those notices advised Altice of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use

of Altice’s service to illegally distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works using BitTorrent. Rather

than work with Plaintiffs or take other meaningful or effective steps to curb this massive

infringement, Altice chose to permit infringement to run rampant, prioritizing its own profits over

the Plaintiffs’ rights. On information and belief, the scope of rampant and repeat infringement

through the use of Altice’s service is far greater than Plaintiffs are even aware.

10. The law is clear that a party that knowingly and materially assists someone

engaging in copyright infringement faces liability for that infringement. Further, when a party has

a direct financial interest in the infringing activity and the right and practical ability to stop or limit

that activity, that party faces liability unless it exercises that right and ability to prevent the

infringement. Altice deliberately turned a blind eye to its subscribers’ infringement and collected

profits from those subscribers in the form of ongoing subscription fees. Altice failed to terminate

the subscriptions of or otherwise take meaningful action against repeat infringers it knew about.

Despite its professed commitment to discipline repeat offenders (and its legal responsibility to do

so), Altice routinely disregarded the harm its subscribers caused to Plaintiffs using Altice’s internet

services and continued to provide those services to known serial infringers and to collect

subscription fees from them. And Altice permitted its subscribers to sustain their infringing

activities for months and even years at a time with impunity.

5
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 6

11. Plaintiffs seek relief including for the infringement of copyrighted works by

Altice’s subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Altice through

infringement notices regarding Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.

Jurisdiction and Venue

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants reside in

and do systematic and continuous business in Texas and in this judicial district. Defendants provide

a full slate of services in Texas, including the provision of internet, TV, and phone service, among

others. Defendants also have a number of stores and service centers within this judicial district

including stores located at 4949 S Broadway Ave., Tyler, Texas 75703, and Green Acres Shopping

Center, 1847 Troup Hwy, Suite 300, Tyler, TX 75701. In order to systematically and continuously

provided service within Texas, Altice maintains sizable operations within the state. Indeed, Altice

currently operates approximately two-dozen physical locations in Texas and has plans to open up

15 more locations and invest $500 million in the state in the next few years. 3

15. Moreover, Altice has engaged in substantial activities purposefully directed at

Texas and this judicial district from which Plaintiffs’ claims arise, including providing internet

service to Texas subscribers who used Altice’s internet services to directly and repeatedly infringe

3
“Optimum Lands in Texas with New Stores in Lubbock and Amarillo,” Press Release, ALTICEUSA (June 15,
2022) https://www.alticeusa.com/news/articles/press-release/corporate/optimum-lands-texas-new-stores-lubbock-
and-amarillo (noting plans to open new stores across Texas, including in this district).
6
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 7

Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Altice has continued to provide internet services to and failed to terminate

the accounts of Texas customers, even after Altice received multiple notices of their infringing

activity. Altice has advertised and promoted its high-speed internet services to customers in this

judicial district and throughout Texas to serve as a draw for subscribers who sought faster

download speeds to facilitate their direct and repeated infringements. And, Altice employs a

substantial number of individuals within Texas, who are responsible for the provision of services

in Texas that enable rampant and repeat infringers to continue to commit copyright infringement

in Texas with impunity.

16. Many of the acts complained of herein occurred in Texas and in this judicial district.

For example, a number of the most egregious repeat infringers using Altice’s internet services

reside in Texas and this judicial district. Plaintiffs have identified many Altice subscribers residing

in Texas who have repeatedly infringed one or more of the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. By way

of example, Altice subscribers with IP addresses 74.197.190.81 and 75.108.119.200, who reside

in this judicial district, committed over 1,000 acts of infringement each—of which Plaintiffs are

aware—over the last few years using Altice’s services. Altice received specific and detailed

notices regarding these infringements, yet permitted the infringements to continue over and over

again.

17. Venue in this 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 District, and/or this is a judicial district in which Defendants reside or may be

found.

7
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 8

Plaintiffs and Their Musical Compositions and Sound Recordings

18. Plaintiff BMG Rights Management (US) LLC is a Delaware limited liability

company, with its principal place of business at One Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016.

BMG is the world’s largest independent music publisher.

19. Plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404. UMG is the largest owner

and holder of exclusive rights in and to copyrighted sound recordings in the United States.

20. Plaintiff Capitol Records, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 2200 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.

21. Plaintiff Concord Music Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at 10 Lea Ave., Ste. 300 Nashville, Tennessee 37210.

22. Plaintiff Concord Bicycle Assets, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business at 10 Lea Ave., Ste. 300 Nashville, Tennessee 37210.

23. Together, Plaintiffs own and/or administer rights in and to some of the most iconic

sound recordings and musical compositions ever created. To that end, Plaintiffs are the legal or

beneficial copyright owners or owners of exclusive rights under United States copyright law with

respect to certain copyrights (the “Copyrighted Works”), including, but not limited to the musical

compositions and sound recordings listed in Exhibit A, each of which is the subject of a valid

Certificate of Copyright Registration from the Register of Copyrights or otherwise entitled to

protection 4.

4
Certain of the works identified on Exhibit A are pre-1972 sound recordings, which were not originally entitled to
protection under the Copyright Act of 1972. Pursuant to the Music Modernization Act, effective October 11, 2018,
federal copyright protection and the attendant remedies are now available for pre-1972 sound recordings. 17 U.S.C.
§ 1401. As applicable, Plaintiffs filed schedules with the United States Copyright Office for the pre-1972 works

8
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9

Defendants and Infringing Activities

24. Defendant Altice USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has its principal place of

business at 1 Ct. Square W, Queens, New York 11101.

25. Defendant CSC Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, has its

principal place of business at 1111 Stewart Ave., Bethpage, New York 11714.

26. Altice USA, Inc., through CSC Holdings, LLC, provides broadband

communications services in 21 states across the United States. 5 Altice’s terms and conditions and

other subscriber agreements identify CSC Holdings, LLC, as the contracting party and provider of

services, though Altice asks that emails concerning copyright infringement be directed to an email

address with an “@alticeusa.com” domain name.

27. Altice USA, Inc., was incorporated in 2015, as a spin-off from Altice Europe N.V.

(now known as Altice Group Lux S.à.r.l). Since its founding, Altice has acquired a variety of

companies that provide internet services across the United States.

28. In June 2016, Altice acquired Cequel Corporation (as a contribution from Altice

Europe N.V.), which operated under the Suddenlink brand. Also in June 2016, Altice acquired

Cablevision Systems Corporation, which operated under the Optimum brand (formerly

Cablevision).

29. In 2021, Altice also acquired Morris Broadband, which provided internet services

in North Carolina, and rebranded it under the Optimum brand.

identified in Exhibit A. For those works, Exhibit A identifies the date of the filing of that schedule, in lieu of a
registration number. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their rights and seek the remedies set forth in 17
U.S.C. §§ 502–05 for those works. See 17 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1) and (f)(5).
5
Altice USA, Inc.’s website states “We are one of the largest broadband communications and video services
providers in the United States, serving nearly 5 million residential and business customers across 21 states with an
advanced portfolio of connectivity services, including Optimum Fiber Internet, Optimum TV and Optimum
Mobile.” And Altice asks that complaints about infringement be directed to an @alticeusa.com email address.
9
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 10

30. In August 2022, Altice combined all of its various systems under the “Optimum”

brand. 6

31. Altice’s internet services enable subscribers to communicate with other internet-

connected users via the BitTorrent protocol and—critically—to transfer files, including copies of

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, on a mass scale. And Altice offers a tiered pricing structure that

delivers faster connections for subscribers willing to pay higher fees (i.e., ability to pirate more

and larger files in a shorter period of time).

32. The ability to download music and other copyrighted content—including without

authorization—is a significant incentive for customers to subscribe to Altice’s services and to pay

for higher tiers of speeds. Indeed, Altice’s consumer marketing material, including material

directed to Texas customers, touted that Altice offered “multigigabit broadband speeds and

more”. 7

33. On information and belief, Altice has consistently and actively engaged in business

practices to suit its own purposes. This includes monitoring for, and taking disciplinary and

enforcement action against, non-payment, bandwidth overuse, spam, and other activity that is at

odds with Altice’s business interests. But Altice has not taken comparable disciplinary and

enforcement action against subscribers Altice knows engage in repeated copyright infringement.

Those infringing activities that do not affect Altice’s bottom line, although imposing disciplinary

actions such as termination against subscribers who engaged in repeated copyright infringement

likely would affect Altice’s bottom line. This leaves copyright owners, like Plaintiffs, and the

6
“Suddenlink is Now Optimum,” BUSINESS WIRE (Aug. 1, 2022)
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220731005070/en/Suddenlink-is-Now-Optimum.
7
“Optimum Lands in Texas with New Stores in Lubbock and Amarillo,” Press Release, ALTICEUSA (June 15,
2022) https://www.alticeusa.com/news/articles/press-release/corporate/optimum-lands-texas-new-stores-lubbock-
and-amarillo.
10
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 11

songwriters and recording artists they represent, to bear the brunt of the harm caused by the

rampant infringement, even as Altice continues to pull in lucrative subscription fees. That inequity

and injustice has forced Plaintiffs to bring this litigation.

34. At all pertinent times, Altice knew that its subscribers routinely used its internet

services in order to illegally distribute or reproduce copyrighted works, including music, without

authorization. As described below, companies that monitor for piracy of various copyrighted

works repeatedly notified Altice that many of its subscribers were actively utilizing its service to

infringe Plaintiffs’ works, among others. Those notices gave Altice the infringing subscribers’

unique Internet Protocol (or “IP”) addresses and the “port” used to connect via BitTorrent, the date

and time of the infringement detected, and the title and artist associated with the infringed works,

among other information.

35. Altice published and maintained a purported “policy” for its subscribers, claiming

that it might temporarily interrupt or suspend infringers’ internet access upon receiving a notice of

alleged infringement and that continued instances of alleged copyright infringement could lead to

full termination of a subscriber’s services.

36. Despite this purported policy to discipline infringement and ample notice of its

subscribers’ misconduct, Altice continued to provide internet services to even the most prolific

infringers. Altice’s services were essential elements of its subscriber’s infringement. Without

Altice’s services, subscribers would not have been able to connect to other users via the BitTorrent

protocol, and they would not have been able to copy or distribute Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.

37. Altice’s declination to terminate the subscriptions of even its notorious and serially

infringing subscribers supported its bottom line. The availability of high-speed access to services

and technology that facilitate music piracy on the internet served to draw customers to Altice’s
11
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 12

services and to help retain existing subscribers. Altice’s customers, in turn, purchased more

bandwidth and continued using Altice’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works. If

Altice terminated or otherwise prevented repeat infringer subscribers from using its services to

infringe, or made the services less attractive for such use, Altice would lose existing subscribers,

enroll fewer new subscribers, and ultimately lose revenue. For those account holders and

subscribers who wanted to download and distribute files illegally at faster speeds, Altice obliged

them in exchange for higher subscription fees. In other words, the greater the bandwidth its

subscribers required for pirating content, the more money Altice made.

Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Activities and Defendants’ Efforts to Thwart Them

38. Over the past two decades, as P2P piracy became widespread, record labels, music

publishers, studios, and other copyright owners have sought to curb the massive infringement of

their copyrighted works caused by online piracy through a variety of means, including litigation

against both P2P sites and internet service providers. As the Seventh Circuit recognized when

commenting on means to enforce online piracy, “chasing individual consumers is time consuming

and is a teaspoon solution to an ocean problem.” In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643, 645

(7th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, in an effort to curtail online piracy, copyright owners have provided

detailed notification of repeat and rampant online infringement to companies like Altice who

contribute to and benefit from such infringement. Altice has been keenly aware of these efforts

and the use of its services to engage in P2P piracy, and Altice has even known the specific identities

of the subscribers engaging in that misconduct—information not available to Plaintiffs without

legal process.

39. Altice has received notices identifying specific instances of its subscribers’

infringement through P2P activities for years, to no avail. Since 2018, Altice has received millions
12
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 13

of notices, detailing specific instances of its subscribers using Altice’s services to distribute

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works unlawfully using P2P protocols.

40. Each infringement notice provided to Altice identified the unique IP address

assigned to the user of Altice’s services who was detected infringing, the “port” used to

communicate via the BitTorrent protocol, and the date and time the infringing activity was

detected. Only Altice, as the provider of the technology and system used to infringe, had the

information required to match the IP address to a particular subscriber and the ability to take

disciplinary action, such as by terminating that subscriber’s service.

41. The infringement notices informed Altice of clear and unambiguous infringing

activity by its subscribers—that is, unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music and other

works. Plaintiffs did not authorize Altice’s subscribers to reproduce or distribute digital copies of

Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and musical compositions to anyone, let alone thousands or millions

of people over the internet, and the subscribers had no other legal justification for that

infringement.

42. Altice’s subscribers have pirated many thousands of sound recordings and musical

compositions that are protected by copyrights and equivalent rights owned by or exclusively

licensed to Plaintiffs. And many of these infringing subscribers have continued to infringe for

months and even years at a time, despite Altice being given specific details of their infringing

activity.

43. Over the past several years, Altice has received over a million notices of

infringement of Plaintiffs’ works by Altice subscribers. These piracy notices concerned close to

20,000 Altice subscribers. Many of these are not just one-time offenders. They are chronic and

repeat infringers. Thousands of the pirates identified among Altice’s subscribers in the relevant
13
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 14

time period were detected infringing hundreds of times. The most egregious repeat infringers—

many hundreds of them—were permitted to infringe thousands and even tens of thousands of times

during the relevant time period.

44. Altice’s pirating subscribers continued infringing for extensive periods of time,

belying any possible claim that repeat infringers face meaningful consequences for their illicit use

of Altice’s services. Many of Altice’s subscribers continued to infringe 30 days or more after Altice

first received notice of that user’s infringement with regard to a Plaintiff’s work. Indeed, many

continued to infringe for 100 or more days, or even for six months to several years, with apparent

impunity from Altice.

45. The scope and volume of infringing activity taking place using the Altice services

illustrates that, rather than terminating repeat infringers—and losing revenue attributable to those

subscribers’ monthly fees—Altice simply looked the other way.

46. During all pertinent times, Altice had the full right and ability to prevent or limit

the infringements using its services. Under Altice’s terms of service and acceptable use policies,

which its subscribers agreed to as a condition of using its internet services, Altice was empowered

to exercise its right and ability to terminate a customer’s internet access. Altice could do so for a

variety of reasons, including a subscriber’s copyright infringement activity.

47. Despite these stated policies and despite receiving over one million infringement

notices concerning Plaintiffs’ works, not to mention the untold numbers of similar notices

regarding other copyright owners, Altice knowingly permitted repeat infringers to continue to use

its services to infringe. Rather than withhold the means of infringement from blatant repeat

infringers by terminating their subscriptions to curtail their infringement, Altice knowingly

continued to provide these subscribers with the internet access that enabled them to illegally
14
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 15

distribute Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works unabated. Altice’s provision of high-speed internet

service to known infringers materially contributed to these direct infringements.

48. If Altice had adopted, reasonably implemented, and enforced a policy to terminate

the subscriptions of known repeat infringers, such widespread, prolific, and sustained infringement

would not have been possible.

49. Altice’s motivation for refusing to terminate the accounts of blatant infringing

subscribers is simple: Altice valued corporate profits over its responsibilities (and over preventing

harm to the owners and creators of the recordings and musical compositions who suffered from

Altice’s subscribers’ infringement). Altice did not want to lose subscriber revenue by terminating

accounts of infringing subscribers. Retaining infringing subscribers directly and financially

benefitted Altice. Nor did Altice want to risk the possibility that account terminations would deter

other existing or prospective subscribers. Moreover, Altice was simply disinterested in devoting

sufficient resources to tracking repeat infringers, responding to infringement notices, or

terminating accounts in appropriate circumstances. Considering only its own pecuniary gain,

Altice permitted flagrant, repeat violations by known specific subscribers using its services to

infringe, thus facilitating and exacerbating the harm to Plaintiffs. And Altice’s failure to adequately

police its infringing subscribers drew subscribers to purchase Altice’s services, so that the

subscribers could then use those services to infringe Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works (and others’

copyrighted works too). The specific infringing subscribers identified in the infringement notices

concerning Plaintiffs’ works, including the egregious infringers identified herein, knew Altice

would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple notices identifying them as infringers

often for sustained periods of time, and they continued to pay Altice subscription fees in order to

continue illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted works.

15
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 16

50. The consequences of Altice’s support of and profit from infringement are obvious

and stark. When Altice’s subscribers used Altice’s services to distribute infringing copies of

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works illegally, that activity undercut the legitimate music market, caused

financial and other irreparable harm. It also encouraged further infringement, deprived Plaintiffs

and those recording artists and songwriters whose works they sell and license of the compensation

to which they are entitled, and diminished Plaintiffs’ (and their respective recording artists and

songwriters) incentives to invest in and create high-quality music.

51. Altice has had actual and ongoing specific knowledge of the repeat infringements

by its subscribers and account holders of the Copyrighted Works occurring through the use of its

services for years. Nonetheless, Altice has repeatedly refused to terminate the accounts of repeat

infringers. The reason that Altice did not terminate these subscribers and account holders is

obvious—it would cause Altice to lose revenue.

52. By its actions, Altice has intentionally ignored and continues to ignore the

overwhelming evidence that provides it with actual knowledge of repeat copyright infringers using

its services. If it responded to that evidence appropriately, such as by exercising its authority to

terminate repeat infringers, there would not be such widespread, prolific, and sustained

infringement as reflected in the evidence from the companies that monitor for piracy of Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works.

Claims for Relief

Count I – Contributory Infringement of Copyright

53. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every averment contained in

paragraphs 1 through 52, inclusive.

16
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 17

54. Altice’s subscribers, using internet access and services provided by Altice, have

unlawfully reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent, or other P2P networks, Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works. By providing the means necessary for its subscribers to commit direct

copyright infringement, by selling and providing access to the internet and the system and

technology that allows for the storage and transmission of data, and by failing to terminate known

repeat infringers, Altice acted affirmatively to facilitate, encourage, and materially contribute to

the unauthorized reproductions and distributions of the Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works by its

infringing customers.

55. Altice has repeatedly, over years, been provided with actual knowledge of the direct

infringements occurring through its system.

56. Altice could have taken simple measures to prevent further damages to Plaintiffs or

their copyrighted works, yet continued to provide its infringing subscribers with the means of

access to and distribution of infringing materials. Altice had ability and authority to withhold that

means upon learning of specific infringing activity by specific users but failed to do so. By

purposefully ignoring and tolerating its subscribers’ flagrant and repeated infringements, Altice

knowingly caused and materially contributed to the unlawful reproduction and distribution of

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws

of the United States.

57. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works constitutes a separate and

distinct act of infringement.

58. Altice has not acted reasonably or in good faith in response to notices of

infringement and repeat infringement of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.

17
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 18

59. Altice’s contributory infringement has been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in

disregard of and indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Altice’s contribution to infringements of

Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works and exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to

damages and Altice’s profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) for each infringement.

61. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

§ 504(c), in the amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed, or such other

amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

62. Plaintiffs further are entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 505.

63. Altice’s conduct is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will

continue to cause Plaintiffs great and 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 injunctive relief prohibiting further contributory infringements of

Plaintiffs’ copyrights.

Count II – Vicarious Infringement of Copyright

64. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every averment contained in

paragraphs 1 through 63, inclusive.

65. Altice’s subscribers, using internet access and services provided by Altice, have

unlawfully reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent, or other P2P networks, Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works. Altice had, and continues to have, the right and ability to supervise and/or

control the infringing conduct of its subscribers and account holders through its agreements with

its subscribers and account holders by, without limitation, blocking access to its subscribers and
18
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 19

account holders or terminating the accounts of subscribers who engage in infringing activity. But

Altice has failed to exercise such supervision and/or control. As a direct and proximate result of

such failure, Altice’s subscribers and account holders have repeatedly infringed and will continue

to repeatedly infringe Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works on a massive scale.

66. The ability of its subscribers to use Altice’s high-speed internet facilities to illegally

download and distribute Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works has served to draw, maintain, and generate

higher fees from paying subscribers to Altice’s service. Among other financial benefits, by failing

to terminate the accounts of specific repeat infringers known to Altice, Altice has profited from

revenue through user subscription fees that it would not have otherwise received from repeat

infringers, as well as new subscribers drawn to Altice’s services by the prospect of illegally

downloading and distributing copyrighted works. The specific infringing subscribers identified in

notices concerning Plaintiffs’ works, including the egregious infringers identified herein, knew

Altice would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple notices identifying them as

infringers, and they remained Altice subscribers to continue illegally downloading copyrighted

works. Defendants derived (and continue to derive) substantial and direct financial benefit from

the infringements of the Copyrighted Works by its subscribers or account holders in the form of

continued monthly subscription payments and by having subscribers and account holders drawn

to its service for the purpose of accessing and/or providing infringing content.

67. Altice has not acted reasonably or in good faith in response to notices of

infringement and repeat infringement regarding Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works. Altice is

vicariously liable for the unlawful reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works

in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States.

19
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 20

68. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings and musical

compositions constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement.

69. Altice’s acts of vicarious infringement have been willful, intentional, and

purposeful, in disregard of and indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.

70. As a direct and proximate result of Altice’s vicarious infringements of Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works and exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and

Altice’s profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) for each infringement.

71. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

§ 504(c), in the amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed, or such other

amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

72. Plaintiffs further are entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 505.

73. Altice’s conduct is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will

continue to cause Plaintiffs great and 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 injunctive relief prohibiting further vicarious infringements of Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

a. Adjudging and decreeing that Defendants contributorily infringed Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works;

b. Adjudging and decreeing that Defendants vicariously infringed Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works;
20
 Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 21

c. Adjudging and decreeing that Defendants’ copyright infringements were willful;

d. Ordering that Defendants pay all damages to which Plaintiffs may be entitled,

including Defendants’ profits related to and/or attributable to the copyright infringement, and for

actual damages in an amount as may be proven at trial. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, for

statutory damages amount allowed by law for each infringed Copyrighted Musical Work, or for

such other amount as may be proper pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c);

e. Enjoining further contributory and vicarious infringements of Plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works;

f. Awarding prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary awards;

g. Ordering that Defendants pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and full costs and

disbursements in this action; and

h. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.

Demand for Jury Trial

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all

issues triable by right of jury.

Dated: December 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William E. Davis III

William E. Davis, III
Texas State Bar No. 24047416
[email protected]
Rudolph “Rudy” Fink IV
Texas State Bar No. 24082997
[email protected]
THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
Longview, Texas 75601
Telephone: (903) 230-9090
21
Case 2:22-cv-00471-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 22

Facsimile: (903) 230-9661

Michael J. Allan
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
John William Toth
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 429-3000
(212) 506-3900
[email protected]
[email protected]

22