Cox Piracy Appeal Gets IA, ISP, Advocate Backing

ISP and internet groups allied before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday in amicus briefs in support of Cox's appeal of a U.S. District Court's upholding a jury's $1 billion verdict that it's liable for subscriber copyright infringement (see 2101130025). NTCA, CTIA and USTelecom said (in Pacer, docket 21-1168) the 4th Circuit should clarify when, if ever, an ISP has specific knowledge that its services are being used for infringing purposes and thus must cut off access. They said for an ISP to be liable for contributory copyright infringement, it must know that it can do something about it, but transmission ISPs aren't able to do anything but cut off service on the assumption future infringements might happen. Because of the verdict against Cox, "transmission ISPs may have no choice but to terminate consumers’ internet access on a massive scale," they said. The Internet Commerce Coalition warned of "crippling damages." It's "Draconian" to require ISPs, on the basis of vicarious and contributory copyright liability, to terminate service to users accused of piracy, the Internet Association said. It said the lower court wrongly says Cox benefits from infringements by its subscribers since those are a minority of subs. IA said terminating access isn't reasonable "because it is a grossly disproportionate response to accusations of illegal downloading." The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries and Public Knowledge said affirming the lower court "would have dangerous consequences" because terminating an account "potentially cuts off every household member," and lack of broadband competition may mean no other way to connect. They said the "staggering and poorly justified" $1 billion statutory damages award against Cox "thwarts basic principles of due process and the public interest." IP law professors said there's no proof the infringing activity is a draw for subs, thus no proof Cox received direct financial benefit from piracy.