Cox Communications Wins Order Overturning $1 Billion US Copyright Verdict 17
Internet service provider Cox Communications has been cleared of a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of several major record labels that had accused it of failing to curb user piracy. "The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled on Tuesday that the amount of damages was not justified and that a federal district court should hold a new trial to determine the appropriate amount," reports Reuters. From the report: A Virginia jury in 2019 found Cox, the largest unit of privately-owned Cox Enterprises, liable for its customers' violations of over 10,000 copyrights belonging to labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group. The labels' attorney Matt Oppenheim said that the appeals court "affirmed the jury's verdict that Cox is a willful infringer," and that "the evidence of Cox's complete disregard for copyright law and copyright owners has not changed." "A second jury will get to hear that same compelling evidence, and we fully expect it will render a significant verdict," Oppenheim said.
More than 50 labels teamed up to sue Cox in 2018, in what was seen as a test of the obligations of internet service providers (ISPs) to thwart piracy. The labels accused Cox of failing to address thousands of infringement notices, cut off access for repeat infringers, or take reasonable measures to deter pirates. Atlanta-based Cox had told the 4th Circuit that upholding the verdict would force ISPs to boot households or businesses based on "isolated and potentially inaccurate allegations," or require intrusive oversight of customers' internet usage. Other ISPs, including Charter Communications, Frontier Communications and Astound Broadband, formerly RCN, have also been sued by the record labels.
More than 50 labels teamed up to sue Cox in 2018, in what was seen as a test of the obligations of internet service providers (ISPs) to thwart piracy. The labels accused Cox of failing to address thousands of infringement notices, cut off access for repeat infringers, or take reasonable measures to deter pirates. Atlanta-based Cox had told the 4th Circuit that upholding the verdict would force ISPs to boot households or businesses based on "isolated and potentially inaccurate allegations," or require intrusive oversight of customers' internet usage. Other ISPs, including Charter Communications, Frontier Communications and Astound Broadband, formerly RCN, have also been sued by the record labels.
Another billion? (Score:3)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow free money! Just have Slashdot post dupes. Cha ching!
Re: Another billion? (Score:2)
Msmash and beauhd apparently don't read each other's stories...
$1 (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, the only just outcome of this would be if Cox is still found liable due to their general apathy towards the legal processes; but the jury rewrites the damages to $1 because the recording labels are exploitative shitpieces who deserve to die in a fire.
None of the named parties in the suit win, which means The Rest Of Us(tm) win. The recording industry learns that juries are going to play the world's smallest violin concerto for them and won't even charge them fees to hear it. The ISPs learn that they still need to do what is legally required of them, or next time the $1B verdict might stand. And we, the public, get additional judicial review of greedy corporations trying to circle-jerk each other while we get caught in the middle taking it from both ends.
Unfortunately it won't happen.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
the recording labels are exploitative shitpieces who deserve to die in a fire.
Any artist can decline to sign with a label, and many choose that path.
The judicial system already has plenty of dysfunction. Weaponizing it as a vindictive tool for your grudges will only make it worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: $1 (Score:2)
So, you dismiss Cox's argument that the required action (disconnect Internet services for those accused of wrongdoing by record companies) is excessive? Imagine your child decides to download a few copyright-protected albums from a BitTorrent site, so when Sony complains, you lose your internet connection and can no longer work from home, as you have for the last several years - that seems reasonable?
You don't have to like ISPs, but on the surface their stated position seems reasonable. (I know, it's hard
Re: (Score:3)
It also seems reasonable to monitor what your children do online, and teach them what is legal and what isn't. That's called being a responsible parent.
Also, the record labels were not sending DMCA takedown notices to people downloading. They send them to people SEEDING UPLOADS. So you aren't losing your connection because "your child decided to download a few copyright-protected albums" - you're getting shut off because your kid was uploading "a few copyright-protected albums" to thousands of people.
And
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see the problem though. Pirating is a part of the culture of the internet and you grow out of it and buy the songs eventually when you get older and can afford it. If the music industry truly cared, you would be able to answer surveys or do something to EARN that $1 or whatever to pay for the song, like mobile apps let you do for free versions with ads. You watch an add each time. So show me
Which side do I back? (Score:2)
I dislike both, I want them both to lose ...
I think they are both in the wrong, the Music companies should not demand for another company to police its civil law claims ..
the ISP should not be able to ignore the law with impunity
Why should ISP's be sued for piracy ? (Score:3)
Re: Why should ISP's be sued for piracy ? (Score:2)
You know, the piracy couldn't happen without electricity - can we kick people off the power grid for copyright violations?
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy might be can the phone company be sued for every scam that is perpetrated over the telephone?
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs could be completely immune from these kinds of lawsuits if they just accepted Common Carrier status from the FCC. Instead, they spend a fortune fighting it every year. In their mind, there is money to be gained by being able to run their networks without restrictions but it sure seems like they've got to be losing more from lawsuits like this.
Re: (Score:1)
"take reasonable measures to deter pirates" (Score:1)
I fail to see the media companies taking reasonable measures to deter pirates either. Like making MP4's DRM free and readily available, passing on the savings of not needing to distribute the physical media and at rates the streaming companies pay, and promoting MP3 sales for reasonable prices.