2 ms·
> In this case, the same court found that Cox was on the hook for the copyright infringement of its customers and upheld the jury verdict of $1 billion in damag
by excalibur 5y ago
> In this case, the same court found that Cox was on the hook for the copyright infringement of its customers and upheld the jury verdict of $1 billion in damages—by far the largest amount ever awarded in a copyright case.
What a terrible decision. Was this jury composed entirely of corporate "persons"?
- slaymaker1907 5y agoIIRC, the main issue was because Cox had a policy (as required under the DMCA) to block users who are repeat copyright offenders on their network. The problem was that they never actually followed through on this x-strike policy.
- sp332 5y agoslaymaker1907 has it right. Years ago Comcast et al. tried to write a six-strikes policy into law, but instead they got this weird compromise where ISPs had to each write their own policy which at some point included terminating the customer's account. So either not having such a policy or not implementing it as written will get an ISP in trouble, but there are almost no rules about what has to be in the policy. It's a bad law but at the same time you kinda have to work to screw it up as bad as Cox did.
- a1369209993 5y ago> but instead they got this weird compromise where ISPs had to each write their own policy which at some point included terminating the customer's account. Given how disfunctional the US legal systems is, has anyone tried setting up a local ISP whose actually-enforced policy is to terminate accounts after, say, one billion distinct copyright strikes?