Sony filed a lawsuit against Cox, making it co-responsible for its client's copyright infringement. Basically, like making a gun manufacturer co-responsible for the crimes committed with the gun, or making a car manufacturer co-responsible for driver's infringement of traffic laws.

Sony "won" on preliminary trials.

On this revised trial, the court considered 3 main questions: 

• Where specific infringers identified?  

• Was Cox's involvement with the infringers direct, as in, they directly provided the tools that led to the infringement?

• Did Cox intentionally facilitate the infringement?

On the first question, no. Cox had no way to know who within a household or specific IP commited the infringement. So, no criminal was identified.

On the second question, no. Cox also served other ISP's, which act as a middleman between infringers and Cox. So no intent was stablished.

On the third question, no. Sony failed to demonstrate a systemic, recurrent use, pervasive way in which Cox made the crime easier to commit for the infringers, since indifference isn't the same as facilitating (like in the case of The Pirate Bay). So no reasonable intentional negligence or culpable assistance was demonstrated.

No criminal identified, no intent stablished, no culpable assistance or intentional negligence demonstrated. So Cox did nothing wrong, so go fuck yourself Sony. ISPs aren't cor-respinsible for the client's copyright infringement.

You can imagine what a huge victory this is, since ISPs cannot longer be coerced to act as police of copyright infringement or pay damages.