A Virginia federal jury watching a high-profile copyright case reached a verdict (PDF) today, ordering Cox Communications to pay $25 million to BMG Rights Management for turning a blind eye to music piracy. The company's behavior amounted to a willfully infringed copyright in the eyes of the jury.

The verdict comes at the close of a two-week trial, which took place after US District Judge Liam O'Grady issued an opinion (PDF) slamming Cox's behavior, saying that the ISP isn't protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "safe harbor" because the company did not "reasonably implement" a policy to terminate repeat infringers.

Today's verdict is a huge victory for BMG and its copyright enforcer, Rightscorp. The Rightscorp business model is based on sending massive numbers of copyright notices via email and asking for $20 or $30 per song "settlements" from users believed to have pirated songs. While Rightscorp wasn't a named plaintiff in the suit, BMG's case was based on evidence produced by Rightscorp, which says it found the IP addresses of the worst Cox infringers.

The $20 per song model made news, but it hasn't led to profits for Rightscorp, which has teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. It also didn't get cooperation from all ISPs. Cox in particular was a staunch holdout, which caused Rightscorp and its biggest client, BMG, to pull the trigger and file a lawsuit in November 2014.

“This is to be an unwritten semi-policy”

There's been little reporting on the trial, which took place in Judge O'Grady's courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia. But BMG likely made its case, in large part, on the same internal Cox e-mails that led to O'Grady's opinion slamming Cox's behavior, which was made public just before trial earlier this month.

"Even viewed in the light most favorable to Cox, the Court finds the contents of the emails cannot be explained away," O'Grady wrote. Essentially, Cox had a policy of terminating users and then re-instating them.

For instance, Jason Zabek, Cox's Manager of Customer Abuse Operations, wrote:

As we move forward in this challenging time we want to hold on to every subscriber we can. With this in mind if a customer is terminated for DMCA, you are able to reactivate them after you give them a stern warning about violating our AUP and the DMCA. We must still terminate in order for us to be in compliance with safe harbor but once termination is complete, we have fulfilled our obligation. After you reactivate them the DMCA ‘counter’ restarts; The procedure restarts with the sending of warning letters, just like a first offense. This is to be an unwritten semi-policy... We do not talk about it or give the subscriber any indication that reactivating them is normal. Use your best judgment and remember to do what is right for our company and subscribers... This only pertains to DMCA violations. It does not pertain to spammers, hackers, etc.

"As long as our process of warnings, suspen[sion], then termination is followed, we can turn the customer back on and start the DMCA count over," Zabek wrote in an email approving another user's re-subscription. "DMCA does not hurt the network like DOS attack, spam or hacking. It is not something we advertise however."

In another email exchange, a representative reached out to Zabek with "another example of a customer that I consider a habitual abuser," terminated twice in a single year. "It is fine," Zabek responded. "We need the customers."

By 2012, Cox was using the term "soft terminate" to describe what was really a suspension "with the likelihood of reactivation." In October 2012, it added additional steps to its "graduated response procedure," and account terminations were nearly eliminated. Before that point, Cox had been terminating an average of 15.5 accounts per month; from October 2012 until November 2014, when the BMG lawsuit was filed, Cox terminated 22 customers in all, or 0.8 per month.

The damning emails highlight the strange situation that led Cox to be the first ISP to get hauled into court for this type of DMCA violation. As early as 2008, Cox actually adopted a harsher policy than other ISPs, and was much more likely to terminate users for copyright violations. The company's strict reading of the DMCA as requiring termination was thought by many onlookers to be, if not outright wrong, at least overly zealous. But because the company's implementation appears to have been flawed, it's now on the losing end of a major copyright case.

"We are unhappy with the decision," a Cox spokesperson told Ars via email. "We will review the ruling in detail and are considering our options, including appeal."

We also reached out to BMG for comment and will add it when available.