![\"pirate-flag\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/pirate-flag-1.jpg\")
Internet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.<\/p>\nInternet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.<\/p>\n
The biggest hit came four years ago when the Internet provider lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.<\/p>\n
A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages<\/a> to the labels. This landmark ruling is currently under appeal<\/a>. <\/p>\n As part of the appeal, Cox informed the court of a supplemental authority that could support its position. The case in question is Twitter vs. Taamneh<\/a>, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platform isn\u2019t liable for ISIS terrorists, who used Twitter to recruit and raise funds.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Twitter aided-and-abetted terrorist activity, because it didn\u2019t \u201cconsciously and culpably\u201d participate in the illegal activity. According to Cox, the same logic applies in its case, where the ISP was held liable for the piracy activities of subscribers. <\/p>\n \u201cThese same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law\u2019s contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here,\u201d an attorney for Cox informed the court.<\/p>\n Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where \u201cculpable expression and conduct\u201d or \u201cintent\u201d were not required. <\/p>\n \u201cThough Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict,\u201d Cox added.<\/p>\n The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services. According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn\u2019t liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently. <\/p>\n Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court, countering Cox\u2019s arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn\u2019t apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws. <\/p>\n While the music industry certainly isn\u2019t happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists. <\/p>\n \u201cTwitter arose under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Plaintiffs there identified \u2018no duty\u2019 under that terrorism statute requiring defendants \u2018to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends\u2019.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cThis case arises under the Copyright Act. This Court has already held that an internet-service provider has a duty to \u2018do something\u2019 about known infringers,\u201d the music companies \u2018counsel adds. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn\u2019t directly connected to the misconduct. The platform\u2019s role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox\u2019s connection to its subscribers. <\/p>\n Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue. <\/p>\n \u201cCox was not so passive,\u201d the music company counsel writes, adding that the Internet provider \u201cset up sham policies ensuring infringement would continue.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cCox knew of specific instances of infringement occurring on its network, tied them to specific users, and chose not to terminate those users to avoid \u2018losing revenue from paying subscribers\u2019,\u201d the reply brief adds. <\/p>\n How the court of appeal will interpret the Twitter ruling remains to be seen. With $1 billion in damages on the line, both sides will likely do everything in their power to fight this case to the bitter end, and it may ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of Cox\u2019s letter to the court, including the referenced Supreme Court ruling can be found here (pdf)<\/a>. The music companies \u2018reply is available here (pdf)<\/a><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nTerrorists vs. Pirates<\/h2>\n
![\"reply-music\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/replym.jpg\")
<\/center><\/p>\n\u2018Not So Passive\u2019<\/h2>\n