The Internet provider found support for this claim in the recent\u00a0Packingham v. North Carolina<\/a>\u00a0decision, where the highest court ruled that it\u2019s unconstitutional to bar convicted sex offenders from social media.<\/p>\n If convicted sex offenders still have the right to use social media, accused pirates should not be disconnected from the Internet on a whim, Cox argued. Especially, if these piracy allegations are solely based on copyright holder complaints.<\/p>\n The argument is part of Cox\u2019s appeal in its case against music rights group BMG. In 2015 the ISP was ordered to pay\u00a0$25 million in damages<\/a>, after it was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement for refusing to disconnect alleged pirates.<\/p>\n Cox presented the new evidence to strengthen its appeal, but according to a new filing just submitted by BMG\u2019s lawyers, the argument is irrelevant.<\/p>\n \u201cThe First Amendment does not guarantee Cox\u2019s subscribers the right to use Cox\u2019s internet service to steal music any more than it prevents Cox from terminating subscribers who violate Cox\u2019s policies or fail to pay their bills,\u201d they argue.<\/p>\n The music rights group notes that the Packingham ruling doesn\u2019t apply to \u201cspecific criminal acts.\u201d The copyright infringements reported by BMG were specific and targeted at individual accounts, so these would warrant an account termination.<\/p>\n \u201cJust as criminalizing the use of Facebook for sexual exploitation does not violate the First Amendment, the civil law of copyright liability may incentivize ISPs to terminate those subscribers who repeatedly use their service to infringe,\u201d BMG explains.<\/p>\n The question remains, of course, whether alleged infringements can be classified as specific acts. One of Cox\u2019s main objections has been that they don\u2019t want to disconnect an entire household from the Internet, based on rightsholder complaints alone. In part, because it\u2019s unknown who committed the act.<\/p>\n BMG is convinced that the Packingham order doesn\u2019t change the standing verdict. It says nothing about repeat copyright infringers, and the company doesn\u2019t believe that account terminations violate the First Amendment rights of accused pirates.<\/p>\n \u201cInfringers do not have First Amendment right to use Cox\u2019s internet service to commit crimes, and Packingham does not hold otherwise,\u201d BMG concludes.<\/p>\n It is now up to the Supreme Court to review the evidence and determine its applicability in the current case. No matter what the outcome, the case is likely to have a massive impact on how ISPs treat repeat infringers going forward.<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"