Overview

In Cox v. Sony, MarkMonitor sent 163,148 notices over roughly two years, while Cox described warnings, interruptions, suspensions, and possible termination after 13 notices. Sony emphasized only 32 infringement terminations and statements it characterized as showing revenue priorities; Cox said its interventions ended 98 percent of identified infringement. The Court treated these as different kinds of evidence, not a single metric of intent. The chapter separates awareness, repeat-infringer policy implementation, operational effect, and purposeful facilitation, explaining why neither a large notice count nor imperfect enforcement alone established contributory liability.

Learning outcomes

The 163,148 notices measured reports about connection-level activity, not 163,148 identified people or individual intent.
Cox's 32 terminations and claimed 98 percent cessation rate used different denominators and cannot be treated as one metric.
Notice records and enforcement gaps may matter to policy or safe-harbor arguments but do not replace proof of inducement or tailoring.

Keywords

Cox v. Sonynoticeevidencecontributory liabilityenforcementMarkMonitor

A Notice Is Evidence, Not Intent

In Cox Communications v. Sony Music, the same evidence could support several different legal questions. This chapter reconstructs the notice-and-response record and asks what each part can legitimately prove. The point is not to decide whether Cox's policy was ideal. It is to distinguish evidence of awareness, evidence about safe-harbor implementation, and evidence of the purposeful facilitation required by the Supreme Court's contributory-liability rule.

That distinction is necessary because litigation turns a long operational history into a legal conclusion. A large number of notices can sound like proof that a provider knew everything that mattered. A low number of terminations can sound like proof that it tolerated infringement. A provider's claim that most activity stopped can sound like proof that its policy worked. Each statement may be relevant, but none answers every question at once.

The record was a sequence, not a single number

The record began with activity that MarkMonitor identified as apparently infringing. Its software detected copyrighted works being uploaded or downloaded, traced the activity to particular IP addresses, and identified the Internet service provider for those addresses. Over roughly two years, MarkMonitor sent Cox 163,148 notices. The notices were therefore reports about activity associated with connections Cox supplied, not findings that Cox itself had uploaded or distributed the music.

Cox described a staged response. After a second notice for a subscriber account, it sent a warning. Further notices could lead to an interruption of Internet access until the subscriber responded, followed by a suspension until the subscriber called and received a warning over the telephone. After 13 notices, the subscriber could be subject to termination of all Internet service. Cox also said its customer contract prohibited using the connection to post, copy, transmit, or disseminate content that infringed copyright.

The sequence matters because it shows several different decisions. MarkMonitor's system detected and reported activity. Cox decided how to map the report to an account and what response to impose. The subscriber—or a person using the connection—made the underlying choice to engage in the activity. Sony's theory treated Cox's continued service after notice as a material contribution to the later infringement. The majority instead asked whether the provider's conduct showed intent to have the service used for infringement.

sequenceDiagram participant U as User or connection activity participant M as MarkMonitor participant C as Cox participant A as Subscriber account participant S as Sony and other rightsholders participant SC as Supreme Court U->>M: Detect apparent infringement M->>C: Send notice identifying an IP address C->>A: Warning after repeated notices C->>A: Suspension or phone warning after further notices C->>A: Possible termination after 13 notices S->>SC: Argue continued service materially contributed SC-->>S: No inducement or tailored service on this record

The number 163,148 is significant as a measure of the scale of reporting.

Published by DeepMox

FAQ

Why can't Cox's 32 terminations be compared directly with its 98 percent figure?

They were not directly comparable: 32 counted subscribers Cox terminated for infringement, while 98 percent was Cox's litigation position about identified infringement ending after warnings and suspensions. The figures measured different events, not a universal measure of intent.

How can the same Cox evidence matter under different legal rules?

The same notices and responses may bear on provider awareness, repeat-infringer policy implementation, or operational effect, while contributory liability still requires evidence connected to inducement or an infringement-tailored service.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the Fourth Circuit's knowledge-plus-inaction rule?

It rejected that rule because knowledge that a recipient would infringe, combined with insufficient prevention, treated knowledge and inaction as a substitute for intent and created a third route beyond the precedents.

Previous9 minCox v. Sony: DMCA Safe Harbors

Next9 minCox v. Sony: Sotomayor's Concurrence

Cox v. Sony: Notices as Evidence

A Notice Is Evidence, Not Intent

The record was a sequence, not a single number

FAQ