Cox-BMG Lawsuit
One of the popular internet service providers in the country, Cox Communications, had earlier filed a $25 million damages appeal against the Music rights group BMG. BMG recently responded to this appeal and stated that there is no need or significant reason to overturn the previous verdict against the filing.
In addition to that, the company also claimed that the policy adopted by the internet service provider in order to conclude accounts of repeat infringers was a complete fraud. An earlier ruling from a Virginia Federal Jury in 2015 held Cox Communications responsible for the copyright infringements of their subscribers.
The Jury declared the internet provider guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement. Because of this, the internet service provider was asked to pay $25 million in damages to BMG Rights Management. However, Cox Communications filed an appeal against this ruling back in November 2015 by claiming that the District Court has made numerous errors that might restrict customer’s access to the internet services.
The 65 page brief submitted by the BMG notes that Cox Communications failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers and they continued to offer their service to these customers ever when the provider received more than a dozen of infringement notices.
Copyright Infringements
“Cox ignores its burden and points to no evidence that it adopted or implemented such a policy. Indeed, the undisputed evidence shows that Cox’s claim to terminate repeat infringers was an elaborate sham,” the BMG filing noted. “Though the precise mechanism changed in the fall of 2012, Cox’s actual policy throughout the entire time period covered by the complaint was not to terminate repeat infringers because ‘for DMCA – we don’t want to lose the revenue’.”
BMG also added that Cox had a policy from 2010 to the fall of 2012, under which, they promised that the company would terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. BMG claimed that Cox refused to terminate these accounts in order to prevent the loss of customers and to enjoy more profit.
“Over and over, Cox failed to terminate flagrant repeat infringers, including one who admitted to ‘years of doing this’ and whom Cox abuse employees regarded as ‘well aware of his actions’,” BMG added. However, Cox Communications claimed that they detected plenty of serious errors in many of the infringement notices sent by the BMG.
