Cox Communications (For short "Cox" ) consider, Internet service providers should not be held liable for the activities of their pirate users. After a disappointing decision by a Virginia jury and an unsatisfactory ruling by an appeals court, The Internet provider now intends to take the case to the Supreme Court. Cox points out, If the current ruling stands, Innocent people are at risk of losing their Internet access.

In recent years, Cox has been at the center of several piracy lawsuits.

The biggest blow happened3Before the New Year, The Internet provider lost a legal battle with a group of major record labels.

A jury in Virginia found Cox responsible for the pirate subscribers, Because the company did not terminate the accounts after receiving multiple allegations, The jury ordered the company to pay10Billions of dollars in damages. Cox appealed the landmark ruling, Although Cox is still liable for joint copyright infringement, But damages are subject to change.

The new damages trial was "Put off"

The Court of Appeal recently threw out the vicarious liability award, And revoked10Billions of dollars in damages. In light of these new circumstances, A lower court will determine the size of damages at a new trial.

When the Court of Appeal issued this order, A lower court could then start new damages proceedings. however, Cox thinks, The best course of action is to stop such procedures, Because there's another appeal pending, That might affect the result. The other case should be resolved first.

The record companies do not dispute this rationale, And has informed the court, Its program can be paused, Until the second appeal is over. The appeal court subsequently granted the request.

Cox filed a petition with the Supreme Court

Cox also revealed, It plans to file a complaint, Ask the Supreme Court to take up the piracy liability dispute. This is worth noting, Because this will be "Repeat infringer" This is the first time a case has reached the U. S. Supreme Court.

Cox asked the appeals court to also suspend his work pending his application to the Supreme Court, Because it could take the legal battle in another direction.

According to Cox, The Supreme Court has good reason to take the case. First of all, The Court of Appeal is currently in court on copyright infringement"Substantial contribution"There have been conflicting rulings.

The Supreme Court could explain that more clearly, When a service with many legitimate uses can be held accountable for infringers.

In addition, Cox also cited the recent "Twitter v. Tamnai (Taamneh) " Supreme Court decision in the case, The ruling held that social media platforms could not be held responsible for terrorists using their networks. Cox thinks, Although the case is not a copyright case, But it has to do with secondary liability issues.

Cox writes: "Although the Twitter case is not a copyright case, But it was facing a direct, Similar theory of secondary liability: Including Twitter andYouTubeSocial media platforms, including the US, continue to provide services to others despite knowing that their services are being used for illegal purposes, May be liable. "

Termination risk

finally, Cox points out, The Supreme Court should hear this case, Because this case involves a problem for both Internet service providers and the public "Particularly important" A problem of. If the current verdict stands, Even if the user is innocent, Internet providers may be more likely to terminate their Internet access.

"judicial 'Substantial contribution' Standards have had a strong impact on Internet service providers across industries, To prompt them to quickly terminate Internet services that are being used for infringement——Whatever the legitimate use of these services, Or innocent people who use these services, What are the consequences of non-infringers. "

Cox added: "Is that why numerous amicus curiae have urged the court not to adopt this standard at the juries and en banc stage, And is likely to urge the Supreme Court to grant a review. " Cox also mentioned previous support from third parties.

The Supreme Court hearing will not suspend the trial proceedings

Cox has not yet filed his complaint, And there's still time, Because the application deadline is2024years6month17day. According to Cox, The intention to appeal to the Supreme Court would be another reason to halt new damages trials, But the appeals court rejected the request.

This means, Even though the case is still before the Supreme Court, A new damages trial can begin. merely, obviously, The legal battle is far from over. (Be compiled fromwww. torrentfreak. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wang Dan　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, 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 us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.