In January, Cox filed a\u00a0motion for relief from judgment<\/a>\u00a0at the Virginia federal court. The Internet provider argued that key evidence was concealed during the trial, which could have led to a totally different outcome.<\/p>\n The evidence in question pertains to the copyright infringement notices central to the case. Cox was held liable for failing to take action against pirating subscribers, despite receiving numerous notices that were based on evidence from the piracy tracking outfit MarkMonitor.<\/p>\n During the trial, the music companies presented a hard drive that contained copies of \u2018verified\u2019 music files that were allegedly pirated by Cox subscribers, suggesting that those were the original songs that were pirated between 2012 and 2014.<\/p>\n However, based on new information that surfaced in a lawsuit against fellow ISP Charter, Cox now believes that this hard drive evidence was recreated at a later date. This information wasn\u2019t disclosed at trial and Cox accused the music companies of misrepresenting key evidence.<\/p>\n \u201cThe materiality of these misrepresentations and the prejudice to Cox could not be clearer: they were intended to \u2014 and did \u2014 fend off well-founded challenges to the admissibility of key pieces of evidence, the exclusion of which would have crippled Plaintiffs\u2019 case,\u201d Cox argued in January.<\/p>\n \u201cThe bottom line is that Plaintiffs lied. They lied to Cox; they lied to the Court; and they lied to the jury. And they rode those lies to a $1 billion judgment,\u201d the ISP added.<\/p>\n These are strong allegations and the fact that they were lodged in a billion-dollar piracy lawsuit only adds to the weight. However, after reviewing the arguments from both sides, the court sees no reason to open the case back up.<\/p>\n U.S. District Court Judge Liam O\u2019Grady acknowledges that some evidence was not disclosed by MarkMonitor at the time. However, the court believes that the \u2018recreated\u2019 evidence doesn\u2019t change anything materially.<\/p>\n According to the court, it doesn\u2019t matter whether the infringing files were verified before or after the fact. The verification process is based on file hashes, which don\u2019t change over time.<\/p>\n \u201cThat these files may have been downloaded and verified in 2016 \u2014 after the Claims Period \u2014 is of no consequence,\u201d Judge O\u2019Grady writes.<\/p>\n \u201cIndeed, the dates of the file downloads do not matter in the context of this case because, as fully explained at trial, files with matching hash values are identical regardless of when downloaded.\u201d<\/p>\n The court also notes that Cox had received MarkMonitor\u2019s statement of work before trial, which contained the 2016 metadata. So the ISP could have looked into the matter at the time if it had wanted to.<\/p>\n In hindsight, Cox may have done things differently. However, the court sees no reason to steer this matter toward a retrial and concludes that Cox already had its chance.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]he Court does not doubt that Defendants received a full and fair trial here. The jury had ample and relevant evidence by which to render their verdict,\u201d Judge O\u2019Grady notes, denying Cox\u2019s request.<\/p>\n While Cox\u2019s attempt to get a do-over failed, its protest against the $1 billion damages verdict continues at the appeal court.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Liam O\u2019Grady\u2019s order on the motion for relief from judgment is available\u00a0here (pdf)<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0Recreated Evidence?<\/h2>\n
Hashes are Hashes<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Cox-file-hash.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nCox Already had Its Chance<\/h2>\n
![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"