Internet provider Charter Communications is one of several companies being sued for turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers .

The cases, filed by dozens of major record labels and music companies, allege that Internet providers fail to terminate accounts of repeat infringers.

Stakes Are High

These lawsuits are serious business. In 2019, for example, a jury found Cox liable for the infringements of its customers, awarding a billion dollars in damages to several record labels. This decision was confirmed recently but will be appealed.

With the stakes this high, the lawsuit against Charter is being fought tooth and nail by both sides. The ISP has already fought back, arguing that the record label’s takedown notices were abusive and misleading. That effort failed and meanwhile, tensions remain high.

With the trial getting closer the focus has shifted on the core accusations. Over the past two weeks, that resulted in an interesting standoff over P2P piracy including BitTorrent, and whether that is still a problem for the music industry.

P2P is No Longer a Problem

The origin of this issue dates back to a hearing last year over a discovery request from Charter. The ISP requested revenue details from the music companies, with a specific interest in streaming income in recent years.

According to Charter’s attorney Erin Ranahan, this information would be relevant to determine the scale of potential damages, if the ISP is found liable. When P2P piracy is no longer a big issue, the amount could be lower from a deterrence perspective.

While making this argument, the attorney stated that P2P piracy is indeed no longer an issue. Not just that, with help from ISPs the music companies now make lots of money from streaming.

“And just to give you some background, the snippet of time in which this case involves, because of the total length in the claim period, is a time when this P2P issue was at its most pronounced. Today it’s no longer a problem,” Ranahan said.

“Today plaintiffs’ clients are making a ton of money off of the Internet streaming capabilities […]. Charter’s Internet is actually giving them a vehicle by which they make a huge amount of money.”

Music Companies Demand P2P Evidence

This argument wasn’t well-received by the music companies. While other piracy threats may be more prevalent than P2P piracy, they still see it as a major problem.

To back this up with data, the companies sent a series of new requests to Charter asking for information. They want to show that P2P piracy is still a problem and that Charter financially benefits from this infringing activity.

Among other things, Charter was asked to share extensive logs of infringement notices, internal discussions about copyright infringement, as well as monthly revenue statements linked to alleged pirates.

The music companies argue that they need this information to rebut Charter’s claim that P2P piracy is no longer a problem. The ISP could use this claim as a defense during the trial, they fear.

Request Denied, For Now

Charter refused to provide the information and pointed out that the court already denied a similar request in the past. During a hearing two weeks ago, the Special Master agreed with the ISP and denied discovery.

The record labels are not letting the issue go that easily though. This week they were back in court, objecting to the denial. They note that the current request is not related to earlier queries, but is specifically tailored to address the P2P problem comment, which is ‘new’.

“Plaintiffs should be permitted this limited discovery to rebut Charter’s argument that peer-to-peer piracy is no longer a phenomenon to which Charter contributes and which contribution must be deterred,” they argue, hoping to reverse the earlier denial.

The request was submitted a few days ago and the Colorado federal court has yet to decide whether it will reconsider its position or not.

—

A copy of the music companies’ objection to the Special Master’s order denying discovery is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | SilverV)

Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon say they have suspended political donations to the 147 Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying Electoral College results, but the companies left the door open for resuming campaign contributions to those lawmakers in the future.

"We will be suspending contributions in 2021 to any member of Congress who voted in favor of objecting to the election results," a Verizon spokesperson said, according to Light Reading . We asked Verizon if the suspension of donations will last throughout 2021 and will update this article if we get a response.

"The peaceful transition of power is a foundation of America's democracy," Comcast said in a statement yesterday. After "the appalling violence" at the US Capitol last week, "our focus needs to be on working together for the good of the entire nation. Consistent with this view, we will suspend all of our political contributions to those elected officials who voted against certification of the Electoral College votes, which will give us the opportunity to review our political giving policies and practices."

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / Starlink satellite dish and equipment in the Idaho panhandle's Coeur d'Alene National Forest. (credit: Wandering-coder )

SpaceX has been awarded $885.51 million by the Federal Communications Commission to provide Starlink broadband to 642,925 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. The satellite provider was one of the biggest winners in the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction, the results of which were released today . Funding is distributed over 10 years, so SpaceX's haul will amount to a little over $88.5 million per year.

Charter Communications, the second-largest US cable company after Comcast, did even better. Charter is set to receive $1.22 billion over 10 years to bring service to 1.06 million homes and businesses in 24 states.

FCC funding can be used in different ways depending on the type of broadband service. Cable companies like Charter and other wireline providers generally use the money to expand their networks into new areas that don't already have broadband. But with Starlink, SpaceX could theoretically provide service to all of rural America once it has launched enough satellites, even without FCC funding.

Read 12 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 16 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Internet provider Charter Communications is one of several companies being sued for turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers .

These lawsuits, filed by dozens of major record labels and music companies, allege that Internet providers fail to terminate accounts of repeat infringers.

Discovery Disputes

With a potential billion-dollar damages claim the case is being fought tooth and nail by both sides. It’s currently in the discovery process where both parties request relevant documents and information from the other side to make their case.

This often results in disputes where one party asks for more than the other is willing to provide. This is also the case here. In order to resolve these disagreements, the court was asked to chime in, which happened last week.

Music Companies are Interested in VPN Use

One of the contested issues is a request from the music companies for detailed information about the VPN use of Charter subscribers. Specifically, if and how often subscribers used a VPN to conceal their piracy activities.

The music companies want to know more about this so they can determine “the extent to which “Charter was aware of its subscribers’ use of VPNs to avoid detection, and whether it took any steps to investigate repeat infringers that accounted for these obfuscating tactics.”

Charter Objects

This is a broad question which Charter immediately objected to. According to the ISP, answering it would require the company to review all documents associated with any subscriber. Instead, it would like to limit it to the customers who have been accused of copyright infringement.

The court agrees with the ISP. In an order issued by a Colorado district court last week, special master Regina Rodriguez fails to see the importance of the requested data.

“On the record before me, I find subscriber use of VPNs to be of only marginal relevance to the claims at issue here.”

Hypothetical Smoking Gun?

The music companies hoped to find a smoking gun. They argued that there may be a document somewhere showing that Charter knows its subscribers often use VPNs to avoid being caught pirating, and that Charter did nothing about it.

This lack of action would then be a sign that the ISP’s repeat infringer policy isn’t working. Or as they put it to the court:

“If, for example, Charter created a report describing generally how its subscribers use VPNs to avoid detection for infringement, but it nevertheless did not try to curb improper use of VPNs, that would be highly probative evidence related to whether Charter reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy,” they argued.

The court agrees that this information could, hypothetically, lead to useful info, but it finds that possibility is outweighed by the trouble Charter has to go through.

“While a document such as the hypothetical one Plaintiffs propose may be of some possible relevance to Plaintiffs’ claims, it appears that such relevance is attenuated and speculative such that it does not overcome the burden identified by Charter of ‘searching every communication’,” special master Regina M. Rodriguez writes.

Charter Will Share Some VPN Info

This doesn’t mean that Charter won’t share any VPN-related information at all. When VPNs are mentioned in communications regarding subscribers who were accused of copyright infringement, the ISP will share it.

In addition, Charter agreed to produce work log notes and internal correspondence, which will also include all VPN references. This is sufficient, the court’s special master concludes, denying the request for any further information on VPNs.

How Useful Are VPN Details?

What’s perhaps most intriguing about this discovery dispute is the fact that the music companies plan to use VPN usage as evidence. Thus far, this angle has never been brought up in any related cases.

We also wonder how useful this information can be. If Charter is indeed aware that some of its users use VPNs to conceal pirating activity, how can it respond to this?

An ISP can’t see if a VPN is being used for illegal purposes, so without an explicit admission from a subscriber, Charter can’t take any action. Simply banning all VPN users would be a bit much, as VPNs have numerous legal uses as well.

—

A copy of the discovery dispute order from special master Regina Rodriguez is available here (pdf) .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | Aurich Lawson )

The Federal Communications Commission is taking another round of public comments on Charter's petition seeking permission to impose data caps on broadband users and charge network-interconnection fees to online-video providers, following a court ruling that may complicate the FCC's decision.

The deadline for comments on Charter's petition passed on August 6. But in a public notice issued today , the FCC said it is opening an additional comment period that will last until September 2, giving people time to weigh in on the impact of the court ruling.

"To ensure that the [Wireline Competition] Bureau has a full record upon which to evaluate the effects of the conditions, we initiate this additional comment period," the FCC notice said, while also inviting commenters to "address the effect" of the new court ruling on the FCC's consideration of Charter's petition. As before, comments can be submitted on the docket by clicking "New Filing" or "Express." There are more than 1,500 filings, mostly from consumers who object to data caps.

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / A Charter Spectrum van in West Lake Hills, Texas, in April 2019. (credit: Tony Webster / Flickr )

Charter can charge Netflix and other online video streaming services for network interconnection despite a merger condition prohibiting the practice, a federal appeals court ruled today.

The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturns two merger conditions that the Obama administration imposed on Charter when it bought Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016. The FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai did not defend the merits of the merger conditions in court, paving the way for today's ruling. The case was decided in a 2-1 vote by a panel of three DC Circuit judges.

The lawsuit against the FCC seeking to overturn Charter merger conditions was filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) , a free-market think tank, and four Charter users who claim they were harmed by the conditions. The FCC unsuccessfully challenged the suing parties' standing to sue, and it did not mount a legal defense of the conditions themselves.

Read 15 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / A Charter Spectrum vehicle. (credit: Charter )

Charter has partially backed away from its strict rules against working from home during the coronavirus pandemic and will let up to 40 percent of call-center employees do remote work.

Charter Executive VP Cliff Hagan sent a memo to employees today, explaining that employees will have to meet certain conditions before being allowed to work at home:

A balance of "In Center" and "Remote Work" will be maintained. We'll begin offering remote work opportunities to those who are at higher-risk from a health standpoint, and then open the option to additional employees who are tenured, taking into account performance, the home infrastructure to support remote work, and agreement to the terms and conditions of a remote work assignment. During this time, we anticipate up to 40 percent of call center employees could be working remotely. These actions will further our ability to create greater physical separation and reduce the overall on-site staffing levels in our call centers.

The memo was shared with Ars by employees. We asked Charter for more details, such as how many non-call-center workers will be given work-at-home options, and will update this article if we get a response. Charter is the second-biggest cable company and Internet provider in the US.

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | Thomas Trutschel )

Charter employees are angry at the cable company for refusing requests to work at home during the coronavirus pandemic and have been reaching out to Ars this week to complain about their employer.

One Charter employee who works in a 24-hour call center in a suburb of Orlando, Florida, said the facility has anywhere between 400 and 700 employees working in one large room at any given time. The call center has 1,200 agents in total, the employee told us yesterday. Instead of letting call-center agents work at home, Charter is advising employees to work at every other desk, leaving a buffer of one empty desk between employees. But there isn't enough space or enough desks to do that, the employee said.

"This is the rough part: we sit at a different desk every day," the employee said. "We don't have our own desks. It's an absolute nightmare breeding ground for germs on a normal basis." The employee shared this graphic from an email that was sent to the call-center workers:

Read 32 remaining paragraphs | Comments