Enhanced losses, 000 30,000 usual caps can be $ 150,000. In this case, the jury was instructed “that if Cox had known it, he could deliberately find Cox’s violations. Its users “Sher wrote.” The directive was mistakenly extended because it allowed the jury to give better losses even if Cox believed it reasonably. His own The behavior was in accordance with the Copyright Act to refuse to eliminate the Internet access to the violating users. “
The US says reject the Sony Petition
Sony was not happy with the fourth circuit decision, either, because he sought a $ 1 billion award and a vicious violation. Gold Debate This Cox has benefited from violating violating users, and that this order “eliminates a particular tool in the digital era, where pursuing directly violators – in this case, thousands of helpless people who cannot be identified as the best named.”
Sor called on the Supreme Court to reject Sony’s request to review. “The Court of Appeals correctly said that Sony did not fulfill its burden to show that Cox had benefited from violating its network. As the court explained, Cox receives flat fees for Internet service to its customers, regardless of what its users do online.”
Sweera compared Cox to a landlord who, regardless of whether the tenants use the lease premises, received a fixed fare, regardless of the lease premises. “There was no evidence that if the violation of its Internet service users was eliminated, Cox would be forced to collect low fees. It was that users were attracted to Cox’s Internet service because of their ability to engage in copyright violations using this service.
“There is no dispute between circuits, which applies the same financial benefit to all the facts of all the facts,” Saur wrote. “Sony has not identified any appeal decision, which has come to different conclusions on the facts of the facts here.”
Cox issued a statement in which the US court was briefly welcomed. “We are happy that the Solicitors General agree that the Supreme Court should review the important copyright case that could endanger Internet access to all Americans and basically change how the Internet service providers manage their network,” Cox said.