In this case, there is a safe harbor where ISPs can avoid liability by enforcing a policy against their customers that eventually cuts them off for repeated infringement. Cox stepped outside of this safe harbor by not following their own policy. But the court says that doesn't automatically make them liable.

▲

ok123456 an hour ago | parent [-]

Does this mean the entire enforcement regime is now more or less a paper tiger? It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law, but you can simply not follow through and enforce it.

	▲	forgotaccount3 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law No. Let's take an example of 401ks. Any company that has a 401k has to pass non-discrimination testing to ensure their plan doesn't favor highly compensated employees over non-highly compensated employees. This is done through Actual Deferral Percentage and Actual Contribution Percentage tests. Just doing these tests can be very costly. If you don't want to do these tests, then you can follow a 'safe harbor' action where the company automatically contributes x% for everyone. If the plan executes the 'safe harbor' action, then they automatically pass the two tests above. However, if they don't follow through that plan they may still not have violated the nondiscrimination policies if they end up passing those two tests. So to bring it back to the circumstance here, because Cox was not following their own processes which would have afforded them safe harbor they do not get the benefit of being automatically protected from the action. Then the court goes to see if Cox was sufficiently involved in the violating actions in order to be liable, and the court found that Cox was not. So going back to the line...: > It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law, but you can simply not follow through and enforce it. Not at all. Because it was not enforced, Cox lost the safe harbor protections and had to defend themselves.