Cox Denies Liability for Pirating Subscribers, Appeals $25 Million Verdict (torrentfreak.com)

Cox Communications insists that it is not responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its subscribers, challenging the ruling by a Virginia federal jury late last year. The court had found Cox Communications guilty and had asked it to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management a sum of $25 in damages. TorrentFreak reports: The verdict was a massive victory for the music company and a disaster for Cox, but the case is not closed yet. After a failed motion for judgment as a matter of law earlier this month, the ISP has now informed the court that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Cox denies any wrongdoing and hopes to get a judgment in its favor at the appeals court. Considering the gravity of the case, Cox's move is not surprising. The liability verdict has come as a shock to the Internet provider industry, as it suggests that providers have to actively disconnect repeat infringers. At the moment, many ISPs don't have a solid policy in place where repeat copyright infringers lose their subscription. In fact, the law doesn't prescribe when and based on what evidence an ISP has to terminate an account.

Comments

Well that was expected

[Anon-Admin]

As a common carrier they would not be liable for such things.

But ISP's did not want to be a common carrier, they fought it and resisted.

I guess they will have to just sleep in the bed they made.

Re: Well that was expected

[ArmoredDragon]

The FCC ought to just make it optional for ISPs to classify themselves as common carriers, which means they have to comply with I.e. net neutrality. If they opt out of it, then they're liable for anything from acts of terrorism to copyright infringement to somebody using their network to solicit murder for hire, and this applies whether the customer uses encryption or not.

Fine them

[lymond01]

It's pointless to try to remove someone's internet access and ridiculous to assume that an ISP is in any way liable. It's a lot like driving -- the DMV can revoke a license but it doesn't stop people from driving, and you can't call the Dept of Public Transportation and blame them.

Lawsuit should be against the single user.

Gosh, I thought this whole copyright infringement nonsense was settled with iTunes "pay 30 cents more, share it with whomever you like" policy from 5 years ago.

Re:$25 or $25 million

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Come on, it's about the principle.

Wait, wait

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If Cox Communications is responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its subscribers, then whoever built the roads in my town is responsible for crimes carried out by criminals who used those roads.

Re:Really?

[sabri]

Wouldn't the ISP's have to police this activity too?

No. The ISP is not the police. The ISP does not get to decide what content is legal and what is not. Only a court order can do that.

Rightscorp and their friends are trying to circumvent the expensive court process by going directly after the ISP. That's it.

Re:WAIT

[cavreader]

You are missing the point. This ruling against Cox can now be used to hit every other provider of ISP providers. Doesn't matter if the provider is good or bad. If the ruling stands you can expect some draconian measures put into place by the service providers which will ultimately end up denying service from anyone who even looks like they may be violating copyrights. Won't matter whether they are or not. The bar would be set very low by the ISP to insure they don't get fined or sued later. They would also send the copyright holder the information on the customer. Not only would the customer lose their ISP they would also be fending off the copyright owners looking for payment.

Re:Really?

[Doctor_Jest]

When I was younger, there was no such thing as the Internet. I traded albums/tapes with people who liked the same music as me. :)

Get off my lawn!!!