Cox blocked! ISP may avoid $25m legal bill for letting punters pirate music online

Appeals court says copyright battle went copy-wrong

By Shaun Nichols in San Francisco

Posted in Policy, 1st February 2018 22:46 GMT

American cable company Cox may not, after all, have to pay record label BMG $25m for letting its broadband subscribers illegally download and share copyrighted music online.

The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that a jury was given incorrect instructions when it decided in 2016 that Cox was liable for its plundering punters and thus owed BMG millions of dollars.

The case stems from Cox's handling of copyright infringement complaints the music label had passed it. After a row, Cox blacklisted communications from Rightscorp, the biz that handles infringement notices for BMG. This meant Cox did not see the infringement warnings, and thus did not step in when its users were found to be pirating music files belonging to BMG.

Cox had appealed the jury verdict, arguing first that it should be protected from legal liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor clause, as well as arguing that the jury was not properly instructed on the law before entering deliberations.

According to Thursday's ruling [PDF], the appeals court did not side with Cox's DMCA safe harbor claim, reaffirming the earlier ruling that Cox did not do enough to stop repeat offenders and therefore could not claim safe harbor.

Where the lower district court was found to have erred in 2016, however, was in the jury instructions. The appeals court agreed with Cox's argument that the jury's instructions on how to interpret the law were wrong.

Music publisher BMG vs US cable giant Cox: Here's why it matters

READ MORE

Specifically, the appeals court said jurors should not have been told that Cox should be found liable if it "knew or should have known of such infringing activity." Rather, the appeals court said that Cox should only be liable if it actually knew customers were pirating music – not if it merely "should have known."

"Proving contributory infringement requires proof of at least willful blindness," the court wrote, "negligence is insufficient."

According to J. Michael Keyes, partner with law firm Dorsey and Whitney, the decision could make it tougher for labels to sue service providers.

"In order for contributory liability to attach, copyright owners will arguably need to meet a higher threshold. They will have to establish that the ISP knew about the infringement or was willfully blind to it," Keyes told The Register. "That could make contributory liability claims against ISPs a bit more difficult to establish as a factual matter."

As a result of the appeals court ruling, Cox can take its battle against BMG back to a district court for a retrial, which will no doubt thrill all the lawyers involved. ®

Sign up to our NewsletterGet IT in your inbox daily

19 Comments

More from The Register

Sky customer dinged for livestreaming pay-per-view boxing to Facebook

It's a mystery how they found out. Call Sherlock

Orland-whoa! Chap cops to masterminding $100m Microsoft piracy racket

Chinese national pleads guilty to running a massive counterfeiting ring

EFF declares anti-piracy DMCA unconstitutional in new legal showdown

Controversial Section 1201 of US law comes under fire

New Sky thinking: Media giant makes dish-swerving move on Netflix territory

Italy and Austria first in line for new service

Comcast offers £22bn to snatch Sky from Rupert Murdoch

Battle of the tycoons

Arsenal are red, pundits have 'insights', BT and Sky splurge £4.5bn on footie rights

It's all about the content, guys

'Tech troll' sues EFF to silence 'Stupid Patent of the Month' blog. Now the EFF sues back

GEMSA, meet Streisand

BT, Sky bury hatchet with deal to sell each other's telly channels

Intended to boost former state monopoly's 'ailing TV service'

UK competition watchdog: Fox's takeover of Sky 'not in public interest'

Deal would hand Murdoch too much power – provisional ruling

Sky mobe ad featuring beefcake Tom Hardy banned for being 'misleading'

'Once it was the hot, new model. Not any more'