A few days ago, A jury in Virginia ruled that U. S. telecommunications company Cox Communications Inc (Hereafter referred to "Cox" ) Due to large-scale piracy 10 Hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. recently, Cox failed in an attempt to get the court to reduce responsibility, His request for a retrial was also denied. But the court agreed, If multiple Copyrights are involved, Damages shall be calculated on a per-work basis, This means that 10 The $100 million figure may come down. 2019 years, Cox lost legal battles with the major record labels. After a period of time 2 Trial of Zhou, A Virginia jury found Cox liable for damages to subscribers, Order compensation 10 Billions of dollars. Cox was disappointed by the ruling, Then asked the court to set aside the jury's verdict and make a decision directly. In addition, Cox thinks it should be lowered "staggering" damages. If not, Cox wants a new trial. These requests were strongly opposed by the record companies, After weighing the evidence on both sides, U. S. District Court Judge Liam M．O 'Grady (Liam O' Grady) A decision was made in the case. O 'Grady as long as 75 The one-page opinion is basically bad news for Cox. The submission will first "The jury verdict should be set aside, Let the court decide" The motion for judgment was discussed as a matter of law, but, The court found no reason to grant this. Cox argued, The evidence presented during the proceedings does not show liability for direct or indirect copyright infringement. The court disagreed. For example, In terms of vicarious tort liability, Records show that Cox benefited directly from its pirate subscribers. O 'Grady wrote: "here, There is ample evidence that, The jury was justified in reaching that conclusion, No matter how big the infringement is, Cox made some direct financial gain from the infringement. " "The court agreed with the plaintiff's argument, That is, Cox's treatment of the repeated infringer's account is sufficient to prove a causal relationship between the infringement and its financial gain. Internal e-mails between defendants can clearly establish the infringement account with Cox's continued collection (Rather than terminate) The link between income. " A court order against Cox according to O 'Grady, Most of Cox's claims fail, though, But the Internet service provider also scored a small victory, That could have huge financial implications. The court agreed with Cox, That is, per piece "works" Not every term "copyright" To award damages. It's listed in this case 10017 Item copyright, The loss of each work is 993830 dollar, The final amount of damages is 10 Billions of dollars. but, Due to the existence of some overlapping works, For example, one song has multiple Copyrights, So it should be adjusted. The court explained that, Infringement should not be punished multiple times for just one pirated track, Because there are too many Copyrights associated with the song. For example, O 'Grady mentioned mash-ups (mashup) , The repertoire can be easily owned 20 A different copyright holder. The judge expressed: "It is hard to imagine, Congress's liability for essentially the same tort can vary so dramatically. Because of intentional trespass, The defendant's maximum damages for each infringing work is 15 Ten thousand dollars, So three minutes of mixing might get the defendant to pay 300 Ten thousand dollars. " That means Cox can see the list of Copyrights in the lawsuit, To determine how much is covered "works" . This is likely to be significantly less than previously proposed 10017 Item copyright. next, The court examined the amount of damages, Make sure each piece is 993830 dollar. Cox summarizes a range of evidence that suggests why "historical" Huge amount, "shocking" . but, The court stated that, Judging from the evidence, This amount is not excessive, It's not what Cox said it was "misjudgment" . Cox knows all too well "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) request, What the possible statutory damages should be, And how many works have been infringed. O 'Grady pointed out: "Because there is no potential ambiguity in the interpretation of the statutory amount of damages, And Cox is well aware of the number of infringement notices it has received, So the product of these two values is reasonably predictable. " "In a word, The plaintiff has the option of a jury trial and statutory damages. After much deliberation, The jury awarded damages per work 99830. 29 dollar, It's all in the act 750 Dollar to 15 Within the legal limit of $10, 000. " In a word, This means that the loss per piece remains the same. Cox is not entitled to a new trial, But consider that a work has more than one copyright, 10 The $100 million settlement could be reduced.

(Compiled from torrentfreak. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Wang Dan　proofread: Rason group

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.