This policy doesn't make much sense to me. Three 'strikes', and you're out.
What constitutes a 'strike'? Just being accused of violating the DMCA? Anyone can accuse anyone of doing that.
In many cases, the RIAA doesn't have anything more than an IP address and some screenshots as 'evidence' against filesharers.
Since Cox doesn't say how much 'evidence' is required to constitute a 'strike' against someone, I'm wondering if they require any 'evidence' at all.
That brings me to my next point. It doesn't appear that Cox even asks to hear the customer's response to the accusation.
The DMCA takedown notices are like subpoenaes; they don't make someone guilty, it just accuses them of being guilty and require the person to defend themselves against the charge.
It seems that Cox counts any accusation as a 'strike' against the user.
If I am incorrectly accused of violating someone's copyright, Cox counts that as a strike against me. Is Cox going to spend the resources to find out if this accusation has any merit?
There is such a thing as 'fair use' in this country, and it doesn't sound like Cox is taking that into account at all.
We also have an 'innocent until proven guilty' policy in this country. Cox's stance seems to be 'innocent until accused'.
Now, if the three 'strike' policy was reworded to read "Three 'convictions and you're out"... Then at least they'd be terminating the user's access based upon a ruling that might carry some weight.