Cox, Music Labels Argue Over Dueling Summary Judgment Motions
The numerous MarkMonitor notices sent Cox Communications on alleged copyright infringement by its internet subscribers were "slipshod, incomplete, inaccurate and massively unreliable," but Cox "responded aggressively" to them, meaning secondary liability against the cable ISP can't be established. That according…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
to Cox in an opposition (docket 18-cv-00950, in Pacer) filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, to music label plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in their copyright infringement suit against it (see 1808020009). But in their opposition to a Cox motion for summary judgment, the music labels said Tuesday (in Pacer) Cox's contention there's no proof of direct infringement relies on believing that the tens of thousands of Cox subscribers identified in MarkMonitor infringement notices were all falsely accused. The plaintiffs in their summary judgment motion (in Pacer) said Cox's infringement enforcement is a "sham" and between Feb. 1, 2013, and Nov. 26, 2014, it received 163,148 notices about infringement on its network involving 57,679 subscribers, with some subscribers being the subject of 14 or more notices. The labels said only a fraction of those subscribers were cut off from internet service. Cox in its summary judgment motion (in Pacer) said there's no evidence any of the files being offered for sharing by Cox subscribers were actually copied by anyone and labels are seeking damages for works they can't prove were infringed while lacking evidence Cox had the practical ability to stop such infringement.