![\"music](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Altice-Building-1024x546.jpg\" "\\"music\\"")
<\/p>\n
Photo Credit: Kidfly182<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Music Another ISP legal battle has been disrupted by the Supreme Court\u2019s Cox v. Sony <\/em>decision. Now, the major labels and Altice have jointly moved to pause their years-old copyright dispute.<\/h2>\nThe litigating labels and Altice (which currently operates as Optimum Communications) just recently asked the court for a response-deadline extension. Like multiple other rightsholder-versus-ISP infringement showdowns, this case had been put on ice pending the Cox v. Sony <\/em>outcome.<\/p>\nAnd in the corresponding order, the presiding magistrate judge instructed the litigants to provide a formal update within two weeks of the Supreme Court determination. Time flies; the two-week cutoff is here, as is the response<\/a> from Altice and the labels.<\/p>\nThough the parties didn\u2019t divulge any groundbreaking details about their talks, they did acknowledge meeting and conferring last Thursday, April 2nd.<\/h4>\n
One sit down later, the involved attorneys would still \u201cbenefit from additional time to analyze the Cox<\/em> decision and confer with their respective clients before submitting a status report,\u201d per the text. With the magistrate judge having approved the request soon thereafter, both sides now have until April 22nd to provide said report.<\/p>\nOf course, all eyes are on this update and similar cases\u2019 own forthcoming updates, which should shed light on the plaintiff labels\u2019 and publishers\u2019 general strategies in the wake of the narrowed contributory liability definition.<\/p>\n
In keeping with a different two-week deadline, counsel for the majors and Verizon yesterday likewise sought a status-update extension until April 22nd. At the time of this writing, the court\u2019s response hadn\u2019t hit the docket.<\/h4>\n
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also wiped away an infringement judgment<\/a>, originally including a $47 million damages verdict, against Grande Communications.<\/p>\nThen there\u2019s the Cox v. Sony <\/em>ruling\u2019s impact on other cases \u2013 including but certainly not limited to courtroom confrontations with Meta<\/a>, X<\/a>, and AI giants such as Anthropic. On the latter front, music publishers earlier this week submitted an amended version of their already-supersized copyright complaint<\/a> against the Claude developer.<\/p>\nThe newer legal document contains several noteworthy changes. But specifically when it comes to contributory infringement, the updated action dialed back a line referencing the \u201cwell-established theories of contributory infringement and vicarious infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n
And the actual contributory infringement claim, focusing on the alleged book piracy<\/a> behind LLM training, parted with its mention of Anthropic users\u2019 alleged infringement in favor of accusing co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann of \u201ccontributory infringement by torrenting.\u201d<\/h4>\n\u201cDr. Amodei and Mr. Mann each knew that they were directing the Anthropic employees working under them to make unlawful copies from known pirated sources and to distribute those unlawful copies further,\u201d the text reads.<\/p>\n
\u201cAccordingly, Dr. Amodei and Mr. Mann are contributorily liable for the infringement of Publishers\u2019 copyrighted musical compositions via torrenting, including the song lyrics contained therein,\u201d the appropriate section continues.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n
And in the corresponding order, the presiding magistrate judge instructed the litigants to provide a formal update within two weeks of the Supreme Court determination. Time flies; the two-week cutoff is here, as is the response<\/a> from Altice and the labels.<\/p>\n One sit down later, the involved attorneys would still \u201cbenefit from additional time to analyze the Cox<\/em> decision and confer with their respective clients before submitting a status report,\u201d per the text. With the magistrate judge having approved the request soon thereafter, both sides now have until April 22nd to provide said report.<\/p>\n Of course, all eyes are on this update and similar cases\u2019 own forthcoming updates, which should shed light on the plaintiff labels\u2019 and publishers\u2019 general strategies in the wake of the narrowed contributory liability definition.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also wiped away an infringement judgment<\/a>, originally including a $47 million damages verdict, against Grande Communications.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the Cox v. Sony <\/em>ruling\u2019s impact on other cases \u2013 including but certainly not limited to courtroom confrontations with Meta<\/a>, X<\/a>, and AI giants such as Anthropic. On the latter front, music publishers earlier this week submitted an amended version of their already-supersized copyright complaint<\/a> against the Claude developer.<\/p>\n The newer legal document contains several noteworthy changes. But specifically when it comes to contributory infringement, the updated action dialed back a line referencing the \u201cwell-established theories of contributory infringement and vicarious infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDr. Amodei and Mr. Mann each knew that they were directing the Anthropic employees working under them to make unlawful copies from known pirated sources and to distribute those unlawful copies further,\u201d the text reads.<\/p>\n \u201cAccordingly, Dr. Amodei and Mr. Mann are contributorily liable for the infringement of Publishers\u2019 copyrighted musical compositions via torrenting, including the song lyrics contained therein,\u201d the appropriate section continues.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\nThough the parties didn\u2019t divulge any groundbreaking details about their talks, they did acknowledge meeting and conferring last Thursday, April 2nd.<\/h4>\n
In keeping with a different two-week deadline, counsel for the majors and Verizon yesterday likewise sought a status-update extension until April 22nd. At the time of this writing, the court\u2019s response hadn\u2019t hit the docket.<\/h4>\n
And the actual contributory infringement claim, focusing on the alleged book piracy<\/a> behind LLM training, parted with its mention of Anthropic users\u2019 alleged infringement in favor of accusing co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann of \u201ccontributory infringement by torrenting.\u201d<\/h4>\n