Cox Communications Fights Back Against ‘Shockingly Excessive’ Copyright Infringement Ruling

Siding with Major Labels, Judge Explains Cox Courtroom Change Denial

After being fined $1 billion, Cox Communications is seeking a drastic reduction in penalties.

In December of 2019, Cox Communications, a major US-based provider of television, telephone, and internet services, lost a high-profile lawsuit to Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, among other plaintiffs. The litigating labels alleged that Cox failed to address repeated copyright violations committed by its internet users—and was therefore liable for damages.

The jury awarded the copyright holders a staggering $1 billion—$99,830.29 for each of the 10,017 works identified by the plaintiffs. Now, Cox and Thomas Buchanan of Winston & Strawn LLP, have filed a motion for remittitur — a request for a judge to lower jury fines that are thought to be excessive — or, reconsider the penalties in a new trial.

Cox’s expansive filing, submitted to the Eastern District Court of Virginia on January 31st, condemns the jury’s decision and the $1 billion fine, calling the latter “a miscarriage of justice,” “grossly excessive,” and “shocking.”

Additionally, Cox argues that the fee itself is “unlawfully punitive,” that it violates the company’s right to due process, and that it resulted from the plaintiffs’ legal team encouraging jurors to make an example out of Cox, as opposed to evaluating the effects of the alleged copyright infringement.

The filing goes on to cite other, similar cases wherein juries requested dramatically lower payments from the parties that allegedly committed or failed to address copyright infringement.

Similarly, the filing claims that “the verdict in this case exceeds the aggregate dollar amount of every statutory damages award rendered in the years 2009-2016 by more than four hundred million dollars”. It further states that the three largest of these damages verdicts were issued to individuals who directly committed largescale copyright infringement by continually uploading protected works to the internet.

Other portions of the decision, including alleged omissions by the plaintiffs’ legal team, misunderstandings that impacted the jury’s decision, and more, are detailed in the 38-page filing.

Also Read:  Spinnin’ Records Wins Appeal in Lawsuit with Martin Garrix

If the motion is denied, Cox will have an opportunity to appeal the decision. At the time of writing, the Big Three major labels hadn’t commented (individually or in a joint statement through the RIAA) publicly on the matter.

Cox Communications is based out of Atlanta and is owned by Cox Enterprises, a conglomerate founded by one-time presidential candidate James Cox.

You can find Cox’s filing here.

6 Responses

  1. Avatar
    Ted

    The thing about penalties, regardless of being excessive or not, is that if you don’t commit the infringing act then you don’t have to worry about any fines.

    Reply
    • Avatar
      Anonymous

      Oh ted the thing about the RIAA is that it’s an extortion racket that does not care becuase it makes it own rules as to what is and is not infringing and you good and damn well know that lol

      Anyone could tell that just by looking at the history spoof said Criminal organization

      I hope cox wins and I hope you the Riaa lays off more people after this.

      Reply
      • Avatar
        Ted

        This isn’t about the RIAA, and you good and damn well know that lol. It’s about Cox ignoring copyright and usage law. Your ignorance and hatred for governing bodies in the music industry is showing.

        Reply
        • Avatar
          Anonymous

          “Ignoring usage and copyright law”

          Whatever lol

          If you people had so much faith in your case you would not had got that tech illiterate judge o Grady to deny evidence and now you want to ask questions on jurors torrenting habits to get yourself a better result.

          This from the industry that went to court to say Katy perry did not commit copyright infringement but will sue an isp over the whole of its internet traffic.

          Reply
        • Avatar
          Anonymous

          but then again I expect nothing less from you vultures you don’t even pay your artist lol

          And since you have done everything from suing dying kids with cancer to now taking a bat to the internet this does not really surprise me.

          Reply
          • Avatar
            Ted

            It isn’t that hard, but you seem to want to defend against what is right. Follow the rules and there are no problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.