• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, September 25, 2015

Late last year, BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music accused Cox of contributing to copyright infringement by failing to terminate the accounts of subscribers accused of sharing files.

The publishers -- who used copyright enforcement agent Rightscorp -- alleged that they informed Cox about “thousands of repeated and blatant infringements,” but that the Internet service provider didn't move against the subscribers.

Cox is now striking back, arguing that it had a good reason to reject Rightscorp's demands.

"Cox refused to accept or forward Rightscorp’s notices to its customers, for a simple reason: those notices demanded that Cox’s customers pay money to Rightscorp to avoid losing their Internet service from Cox. The notices also contained links that took customers to a web page at which the customers would surrender their personal information -- information that Rightscorp exploited to barrage consumers with spam and robocalls -- without safeguards against abuse," Cox says in a motion for summary judgment filed this week with U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady in Alexandria, Virginia.

Cox adds that it turned down an offer from Rightscorp for a portion of the money it recovered from subscribers.

"Cox’s treatment of Rightscorp’s extortionate notices was proper... In fact, Cox repeatedly offered to work with Rightscorp, asked it to remedy its improper notices, and stated on multiple occasions that it would accept and forward proper notices," the broadband company says in its court papers.

Cox says it's entitled to summary judgment for several reasons, including that Rightscorp lacks valid evidence that Cox's subscribers infringed copyright. "Rightscorp’s practices were not just shady: they were also shoddy. Rightscorp’s notices were false; its process, unreliable," Cox says, adding that Rightscorp personnel acknowledged they didn't know whether Cox subscribers "actually committed infringements."