Cox Communications Not Protected Under DMCA In Landmark Case

The illegal downloading of music has been a big problem for the music industry since the advent of file-sharing services such as Napster and Livewire. Given how rampant and seemingly unstoppable illegal downloading of music has become, it should be no surprise that legislators have enacted laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”) to combat infringers of music. The DMCA is intended to prevent the circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works and adds civil remedies and criminal penalties for violating the Act.

Usually when one thinks of someone who would violate this act, the first culprit that comes to mind is an individual who spends time illegally downloading music and other content only to be tracked down and arrested by the authorities. However, in a landmark decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Cox Communications, Inc. (“Cox”) could be held liable for the illegal downloading of music by its subscribers.

Cox Communications, Inc., an internet service provider, was sued by BMG Rights Management, LLC and Round Hill Music, LP for willfully allowing subscribers that were using Cox’s internet service to download music illegally. The plaintiffs in the action alleged that Cox repeatedly refused to deactivate customer accounts that were suspected of illegally downloading music, even after they were repeatedly notified by the plaintiffs of hundreds of infringers downloading music illegally using Cox’s service. The plaintiffs further allege that Cox willfully ignored these reports because it would have resulted in a loss of revenue for Cox. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that Cox failed in implementing a “repeat-infringer” policy as required by law and therefore is not afforded the protection provided under DMCA safe-harbor provisions. DMCA safe-harbor provisions allow internet service providers protection from copyright infringement claims as long as they “adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers.” The case is expected to go to trial this week to determine if Cox should be held liable for copyright infringement.

This ruling could have serious implications not only for internet service providers but also for subscribers. Internet service providers will have to be more proactive about implementing and enforcing “repeat-infringer” policies, while subscribers will have to be more careful about what they download so that they do not lose their internet service.

By: Rolando Cubela, Associate Editor of Sports and Entertainment

Photo credit: darkon_turas via flickr.com cc

Sources Used:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/11/25/downloaders-beware-judge-rules-against-cox-in-copyright-battle/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rules-against-cox-communications-in-copyright-case-1448404833

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf