Record labels versus ISPs
Cox has said that allowing the piracy ruling to stand would “force ISPs to terminate Internet service to households or businesses based on unproven allegations of infringing activity, and put them in a position where they would have to monitor their networks.” Cox said that ISPs “have no way to verify that a bot-generated notice is accurate” and that even if the notices are accurate, terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person illegally downloads copyrighted files would have downloaded.
Record labels urged the court to reinstate the vicarious infringement judgment. “As the court explained, the jury had sufficient evidence that Cox profited from its subscribers' infringement, including evidence 'that Cox took into account the subscriber's monthly payments when deciding to terminate a subscription for repeat infringement' , and “Cox repeatedly refused to terminate the Internet service of infringing subscribers to continue collecting their monthly fees,” the record labels' petition said.
Another potentially important copyright case involves the record labels and Grande, an ISP owned by Astound Broadband. The conservative-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last month that Grande broke the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat offenders. The 5th Circuit also ordered a new trial for damages, finding that an award of $46.8 million was too high. Grande and the record labels are both looking and sofa rehearsals of the 5th Circuit panel's ruling.
