ISP to Supreme Court: We shouldn't have to disconnect users accused of piracy
Cox Communications has petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge a ruling requiring ISPs to disconnect users accused of piracy, raising concerns about liability standards and impacts on innocent users.
Read original article
Cox Communications, a major Internet service provider, has petitioned the Supreme Court to rule that ISPs should not be required to disconnect users accused of piracy. This request follows a ruling in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony, which claimed that Cox failed to adequately combat piracy on its network. A jury previously ordered Cox to pay $1 billion in damages, but this was vacated by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a finding of willful contributory infringement against Cox. The appeals court noted that Cox did not adequately argue its case in the lower court, particularly regarding the knowledge of its subscribers' infringement. Cox's petition highlights concerns that the ruling could force ISPs to terminate service based on unproven allegations, impacting entire households. The case raises significant questions about the standards for holding ISPs liable for copyright infringement and whether mere knowledge of infringement is sufficient for establishing willfulness. Cox argues that the 4th Circuit's decision conflicts with other circuit courts and seeks clarification on the legal standards for contributory infringement.
- Cox Communications is challenging a ruling that could require ISPs to disconnect users accused of piracy.
- The case stems from a lawsuit by Sony, which claimed Cox did not adequately address piracy on its network.
- A previous $1 billion damages award against Cox was vacated, but the finding of willful contributory infringement was upheld.
- The Supreme Court's decision could clarify the standards for ISP liability in copyright infringement cases.
- The case raises concerns about the impact on innocent users and the responsibilities of ISPs in policing their networks.
Related
Supreme Court Blow: ISP Bill Payers Aren't Piracy Police or Instantly Liable
The Supreme Court denied Voltage Holdings' appeal in a piracy case involving 'Revolt' movie. Courts stressed the necessity of direct evidence for file-sharing authorization, setting a precedent for copyright cases in Canada.
Music labels sue Verizon for more than $2.6B
Major music labels sue Verizon for $2.6 billion, alleging the company profited from customers' copyright violations. Lawsuit claims Verizon ignored infringement notices and fostered piracy, seeking penalties and legal fees.
Record labels sue Verizon for not disconnecting pirates' Internet service
Major record labels sue Verizon for $2.6 billion, accusing the ISP of profiting from copyright infringement by not disconnecting music pirates. Verizon faces criticism for hindering infringement reports. Verizon has not responded.
ISPs worry that killing FCC net neutrality rules will come back to haunt them
ISPs are challenging a New York law mandating low-cost broadband, fearing it may lead to more state regulations if FCC rules are overturned, impacting investment and consumer choice in broadband services.
Cox asks Supreme Court to review holding company liable for pirating subscribers
Cox Communications has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a ruling holding ISPs liable for subscriber piracy, raising critical questions about service provider liability and potential impacts on internet access.
4 commentsGodspeed Cox Cable. Get this ruling overturned.
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & others v iiNet Ltd (Decided 20 April 2012)
(commonly known as AFACT v iiNet) was a case in the Federal and High Courts of Australia between members of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and other movie and television studios and iiNet, Australia's third-largest Internet service provider (ISP) at the time.
The alliance of 34 companies unsuccessfully claimed that iiNet authorised primary copyright infringement by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from downloading and sharing infringing copies of films and television programs using BitTorrent.
* An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed by Emmett and Nicholas JJ (Jagot J dissenting).
* A subsequent appeal to the High Court was unanimously dismissed on 20 April 2012.
This case is important in Australian copyright law because it tests copyright law changes required in the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement, and set a precedent for future law suits about the responsibility of Australian Internet service providers with regards to copyright infringement via their services
Related
Supreme Court Blow: ISP Bill Payers Aren't Piracy Police or Instantly Liable
The Supreme Court denied Voltage Holdings' appeal in a piracy case involving 'Revolt' movie. Courts stressed the necessity of direct evidence for file-sharing authorization, setting a precedent for copyright cases in Canada.
Music labels sue Verizon for more than $2.6B
Major music labels sue Verizon for $2.6 billion, alleging the company profited from customers' copyright violations. Lawsuit claims Verizon ignored infringement notices and fostered piracy, seeking penalties and legal fees.
Record labels sue Verizon for not disconnecting pirates' Internet service
Major record labels sue Verizon for $2.6 billion, accusing the ISP of profiting from copyright infringement by not disconnecting music pirates. Verizon faces criticism for hindering infringement reports. Verizon has not responded.
ISPs worry that killing FCC net neutrality rules will come back to haunt them
ISPs are challenging a New York law mandating low-cost broadband, fearing it may lead to more state regulations if FCC rules are overturned, impacting investment and consumer choice in broadband services.
Cox asks Supreme Court to review holding company liable for pirating subscribers
Cox Communications has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a ruling holding ISPs liable for subscriber piracy, raising critical questions about service provider liability and potential impacts on internet access.