US Supreme Court asks Justice Department’s views on Cox Communications case
11:04 am Monday, November 25th, 2024
By Blake Brittain
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Justice Department on Monday to weigh in on whether the justices should review a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and a group of music labels following a judicial decision that threw out a $1 billion jury verdict against the internet service provider over alleged piracy of music by Cox customers.
The justices are considering taking up appeals from both sides of different aspects of a lower court’s ruling. The labels – including Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group – appealed an aspect of the lower court’s decision that would result in a new trial to determine the amount of damages Cox must pay. Cox appealed the lower court’s decision that it is still liable for copyright infringement by the users of its internet service.
More than 50 labels joined together to sue Cox in 2018. Their appeal to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate the $1 billion award.Â
The labels accused Cox of doing too little to stop its users from illegally downloading pirated copies of their music through peer-to-peer (P2P) protocols like BitTorrent. They said Cox failed to address thousands of copyright infringement notices from the labels, to cut off access for repeat infringers and to take reasonable measures to deter piracy of the music.
Major labels have brought similar lawsuits against other internet service providers including Charter Communications, Frontier Communications and Astound Broadband.
A jury in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia decided in 2019 that Cox owed $1 billion in damages for violations by its internet service users of more than 10,000 music copyrights. The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that the award could not stand, reversing part of the infringement verdict and remanding the case for a new trial on damages.
The 4th Circuit also rejected Cox’s request to escape the verdict entirely, finding that the company committed secondary copyright infringement by failing to address user piracy.
(Reporting by Blake Brittain; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; editing by Will Dunham)
