The Copyright Alert System (CAS)—commonly known as the Six Strikes program—was launched by the Center for Copyright Information as a cooperative effort between major internet service providers and copyright owners to educate and deter online copyright infringement. The system represented an attempt to address mass copyright infringement through graduated responses rather than through litigation, but its implementation raised significant legal questions about due process, ISP liability, and the practical effectiveness of educational interventions.
The system operated through a partnership between the Center for Copyright Information and major ISPs including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and Cablevision. Copyright owners and their agents monitored BitTorrent networks and peer-to-peer file sharing services for infringement of their content. When an infringing IP address was identified, the rights holder submitted the information to the relevant ISP, which then issued a graduated series of alerts to the subscriber associated with that IP address.
The six-alert progression moved from purely educational messages in the early stages to increasingly impactful mitigation measures in the later stages. The first two alerts provided links to educational materials about copyright law. Alerts three and four repeated the educational message with requests for confirmation of receipt. Alerts five and six triggered ISP mitigation measures, which could include throttling internet speed, redirecting the subscriber to a landing page, or, in extreme cases, temporary service suspension.
Subscribers who believed a notice was issued in error could request a review through the American Arbitration Association. This process required a $35 fee, which was refunded if the review found in the subscriber’s favor. The review could be based on several grounds, including that the subscriber did not commit infringement, that the internet connection was used by someone else, or that the content identified in the notice was not actually copyrighted or was subject to a fair use defense.
The CAS raised a number of significant legal concerns that were never fully resolved before the program was discontinued in 2014:
The CAS was discontinued in 2014 after its operators acknowledged it had not achieved meaningful reductions in online infringement. The program’s failure to survive illustrates the challenge of using graduated warning systems to deter behavior that is easy to engage in and difficult to detect with precision. Since the program’s end, copyright enforcement has shifted almost entirely back to DMCA takedowns, litigation by rights holders against identified infringers, and platform-level enforcement through tools like YouTube’s Content ID.
Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys advise content owners on developing effective anti-piracy strategies and advise individuals who receive copyright infringement claims on their rights and available defenses. Contact us today to discuss your copyright situation.
The Copyright Alert System was shut down in 2014 in part because rights holders found it an insufficient substitute for direct legal action. In the years following its discontinuation, copyright enforcement shifted back to a litigation-heavy model. Firms like Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings have filed thousands of cases in federal courts across the country, using IP address identification to subpoena ISP subscriber information and demand settlements.
The typical copyright troll lawsuit follows a predictable pattern. The rights holder identifies IP addresses participating in BitTorrent swarms sharing its content, files a single lawsuit naming dozens of John Doe defendants, subpoenas the relevant ISPs for subscriber information, and then contacts each identified subscriber with a settlement demand. The settlement amount—typically a few thousand dollars—is calibrated to be less than the cost of hiring a lawyer to defend the case, even though the legal exposure for an actual infringer who downloaded a single work is substantial.
Courts have responded to this practice with increasing skepticism. Many judges have denied early discovery requests to unmask defendants, found improper joinder where hundreds of unrelated defendants were named in a single case, and imposed sanctions on attorneys who engaged in bad-faith litigation tactics. The practical deterrent effect of these lawsuits remains disputed.
Today, online copyright enforcement relies primarily on three mechanisms: DMCA takedown notices to platforms and hosts, Content ID and equivalent systems operated by major platforms, and direct litigation against identified infringers. Rights holders also work with internet service providers under voluntary arrangements and pursue legal action against repeat infringers under the safe harbor’s repeat infringer policy requirements.
The most effective enforcement programs combine proactive monitoring with swift DMCA notice submission. Rights holders who register their copyrights, monitor distribution channels, and submit targeted DMCA notices directed at specific infringing content—rather than mass notices targeting broad categories of content—achieve better results with lower legal risk.
If you receive a copyright infringement notice—whether from the Copyright Alert System’s successors, a DMCA notice forwarded by your ISP, or a civil lawsuit—several rights apply. You are presumed innocent; a copyright notice is not a finding of infringement. You have the right to contest the claim through the applicable procedures. If a lawsuit is filed, you have the right to require the plaintiff to prove every element of the infringement claim.
Practical steps: do not ignore the notice, preserve relevant evidence, consult a copyright attorney before responding, and do not pay a settlement demand without legal advice. Many settlement demands are sent to accounts where the subscriber did not commit the infringement, and rights holders often settle for less than their initial demands when faced with a defendant who is prepared to contest the claim.
Contact Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys to discuss your rights and options if you have received a copyright infringement notice or lawsuit.
The Copyright Alert System ultimately served as a demonstration that addressing mass copyright infringement requires more than educational messages. Rights holders, ISPs, policymakers, and courts continue to refine their approaches. If you have received a copyright infringement notice or have questions about your rights and obligations as a content creator or consumer, contact Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys today for a consultation.
Copyright law continues to evolve alongside the platforms and technologies through which content is distributed. Whether you are a content creator seeking to protect your work, a business facing a copyright infringement demand, or a platform operator designing a DMCA compliance program, Revision Legal’s copyright attorneys provide practical guidance tailored to your situation. Contact us today to discuss your copyright needs.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
Copyright infringement fraud involves filing false DMCA notices or misrepresenting ownership to profit illegally. Here’s how these schemes work and how to fight back.
Read more about Copyright Infringement Fraud: A Serious Problem