Posted by The Charter Communications lawsuit is an interesting case that has been making its way through the courts for the past two years. The suit is over the classification of music and video from the public domain and whether or not it should be made available for free on the internet. Essentially this is an argument that the courts have already had and should resolve. There is an easy way to understand the basics of the case and if you have an interest in music and would like to know more about it you can research the information online.
Charter Communications Lawsuit
In 2021 the company Charter Communications, now called Charter Communications, filed a lawsuit against five black-owned media companies over their refusal to give their songs and videos for free on the Internet. At the time the lawsuit was filed, there were no laws in place that regulated the situation.
That all changed however when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Charter. The RIAA is well known for its campaign against online music sharing. The organization has made many accusations against Charter and it’s competitors, claiming that they are guilty of facilitating criminal activity by providing websites that were used to commit copyright or trademark infringement.
Charter Communications was ultimately forced to hand back control of its website to YouTube, but not before it paid an enormous settlement to settle the case out of court.
The result of the suit was a new law in the United States that requires music and other works to be licensed for public distribution. This law has been in place since 2021 but it was never put into effect because no major companies wanted to risk going to the expense and risk of being labeled as criminals by the music and media industries.
For a few years it looked as though the lawsuit would never come to an end. However, earlier this year the United States Federal Trade Commission took action to force the companies to register their copyrights. As a result, the lawsuits against Charter Communications and other related companies are finally over.
Now that the lawsuits have been dropped, it is time to turn to the real issue.
Did Charter Communications suffer from systemic racism? And if so, how did that affect their ability to provide quality services to their customers? Many people are quick to point to Charter Communications’ usage of a white saviour to make sure that the company avoids the possibility of being found guilty of harboring white supremacy, despite there being no proof to support such a theory.
While this may be true, the same cannot be said about the larger company, Charter Communications.
In the early days of the company it was owned by Morgan Stanley and it had a reputation of being a company that was not interested in diversity. At one point in time the company was actually run by one of the founders of Wrigley Brothers, who was famous for treating minorities poorly.
During the height of the civil rights era it was even worth questioning whether or not white Americans were benefiting from having an African American owned and operated company. Luckily, the company has changed its name and now it is run by minorities and women. It is interesting to note that during all of these years, the company has managed to maintain its excellent customer service record and growth, something that no other cable company has been able to accomplish.
Is there really a correlation between the amount of diversity that Charter Communications has gone through and their ability to survive the onslaught of a frivolous lawsuit?
No, but it certainly provides hope that any lawsuit that may arise will only serve as further proof that diversification does not necessarily harm a company’s ability to provide quality service. Even if a lawsuit does successfully bring forth false accusations against Charter Communications, the vast majority of people who use Charter will be very pleased with the level of service they receive. As a result of this success, there is little reason that a diversified company could ever face discrimination of any kind.