Internet provider Cox Communications (Cox Communications) Think that, A couple of record labels might be 2019 Key information was withheld in the piracy case in 2000, Led to a court order against him 10 A $100 million judgment. Cox plans to have the court throw out the verdict.

In recent years, Cox has been embroiled in piracy lawsuits. The strongest blow came when 3 Years ago, The Internet provider lost a legal battle with several major record labels. 10 A Virginia jury found Cox liable for pirated subscribers, Repeated accusations from the rights holders failed to get the company to terminate users' accounts.

The court ordered Cox to pay 10 Billions of dollars in damages. The landmark ruling is currently under appeal.

In addition, Cox also plans to challenge the verdict through another avenue. A few days ago, Cox's lawyers asked for permission to intervene in several music companies targeting rivals Charter Suit filed. The case is very similar to the Cox suit. In both cases, Isps have been accused of failing to disconnect subscribers who have been repeatedly flagged as copyright infringers. The copyright infringement notice is key evidence. These notices are made by MarkMonitor sent, MarkMonitor Is an agency that monitors the sharing of pirated files via bitstreams.

To confirm that these files are indeed pirated, They pass Audible Magic The fingerprint recognition technology was verified. Reconstructed evidence? The document suspected of infringement is the core evidence to directly prove copyright infringement.

During the Cox trial, The music company showed off a hard drive containing the files. however, According to Charter Information that came to light in the case, Cox now believes the hard drive evidence was recreated after the fact. Cox accused the music company of misrepresenting key evidence. in 2016 Annual download? Cox has tried to get more information about the source of the files on the hard drive. The metadata shows that the drive itself is in 2016 Created in 2000, But the witness said the infringing documents were original.

however, According to Charter Evidence of a case, Cox now thinks, These files are not downloaded and verified when the infringement notice is sent, It was made many years later. Cox is now asking the court for permission to intervene Charter litigation, To get the information you need, This information is not public. revocation 10 The $100 million judgment Cox argued, The false statement undermined Cox's trial defense. The Cox plan is based on "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" The first 60 article (b) paragraph (3) A motion was passed to settle the matter, Ask the court to set aside 10 A $100 million award.

Interested parties can correct glaring errors and omissions through a motion in court. Cox argued that the misrepresentation in the hard drive was enough to overturn the entire conviction.

(Compiled from torrentfreak. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wu Xian

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.