*

Labels including Sony ( SONY ), Universal and Warner sued Cox

*

The labels have sought to restore $1 billion verdict

By Blake Brittain

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court

agreed on Monday to decide a copyright dispute between Cox

Communications and a group of music labels following a

judicial decision that threw out a $1 billion jury verdict

against the internet service provider over alleged piracy of

music by Cox customers.

The justices took up Cox's appeal of the lower court's

decision that it was still liable for copyright infringement by

users of its internet service despite the decision to overturn

the verdict.

The justices also declined to hear an appeal by the labels -

including Sony Music, Universal Music Group

and Warner Music Group ( WMG ) - of an aspect of the lower

court's decision that would result in a new trial to determine

the amount of damages Cox must pay.

The court is expected to hear the case in its new term,

which begins in October.

More than 50 labels joined together to sue Cox in 2018.

Their appeal to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate the $1

billion award.

The labels accused Cox of doing to little to stop its users

from illegally downloading pirated copies of their music through

peer-to-peer (P2P) protocols like BitTorrent. They said Cox

failed to address thousands of copyright infringement notices

from the labels, to cut off access for repeat infringers and to

take reasonable measures to deter piracy of the music.

Major labels have brought similar lawsuits against other

internet service providers including Charter Communications ( CHTR ),

Frontier Communications and Astound Broadband.

A jury in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia decided in 2019

that Cox owed $1 billion in damages for violations by its

internet service users of more than 10,000 music copyrights. The

Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year

that the award could not stand, reversing part of the

infringement verdict and remanding the case for a new trial on

damages.

The 4th Circuit also rejected Cox's request to escape the

verdict entirely, finding that the company committed secondary

copyright infringement by failing to address user piracy.

Cox told the Supreme Court in its appeal that the 4th Circuit's

decision had caused "confusion, disruption and chaos on the

internet." Cox also said that holding it liable for user

infringement would force it to cut off internet access for

"entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities" and

others "merely because some unidentified person was previously

alleged to have used the connection to infringe."

The labels appealed the 4th Circuit's decision that Cox did not

have vicarious liability, a legal doctrine in which a party is

found to have indirect liability for the actions of another

party, in this case. The labels told the Supreme Court that the

circuit court's decision was out of line with other decisions by

federal appeals courts on vicarious liability.

President Donald Trump's administration urged the Supreme Court

in May to take up Cox's appeal and reject the petition by the

labels.