Record Labels File 'Billion Dollar' Piracy Lawsuit Against ISP Cox (torrentfreak.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: This week Cox's problems doubled after a group of high profile record labels filed a new piracy liability lawsuit against the Internet provider. Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Music, Universal Music, Warner Bros Records, and several others accuse the company of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers. The labels argue that Cox has knowingly contributed to the piracy activities of its subscribers and that it substantially profited from this activity. All at the expense of the record labels and other rightsholders. "Indeed, for years, Cox deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb its customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others' copyrights -- even once Cox became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement," the complaint reads. To stop the infringing activities, the music companies sent hundreds of thousands of notices to the Internet provider. This didn't help much, they claim, noting that Cox actively limited the number of notices it processed.
"Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to any of its subscribers' infringements that exceeded its 'cap.'" Cox has previously stressed that it implemented a "thirteen-strike policy" to deal with the issue. According to the record labels, it is clear that Cox intentionally ignored these repeated copyright infringements. As such, they believe that the ISP is liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. As compensation for the claimed losses, the companies demand statutory or actual damages, as well as coverage for their attorney fees and other costs. Since the complaint lists over 10,000 musical works, and there's a statutory maximum of $150,000 per work, the case could in theory cost Cox more than $1.5 billion.
"Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to any of its subscribers' infringements that exceeded its 'cap.'" Cox has previously stressed that it implemented a "thirteen-strike policy" to deal with the issue. According to the record labels, it is clear that Cox intentionally ignored these repeated copyright infringements. As such, they believe that the ISP is liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. As compensation for the claimed losses, the companies demand statutory or actual damages, as well as coverage for their attorney fees and other costs. Since the complaint lists over 10,000 musical works, and there's a statutory maximum of $150,000 per work, the case could in theory cost Cox more than $1.5 billion.
Re:They should sue (Score:4, Informative)
They should sue the road owners for helping piracy
You mean the electrical companies for providing electrons.
Their lawyers must have forgotten the concept of safe harbor as part of the DCMA act/
Cox literally said "F the dmca!!!" (Score:4, Informative)
To qualify for safe harbor under the the DMCA, an isp must implement a reasonable policy regarding repeat offenders. Quoting from the complaint:
--
Specifically, the Court concluded:
Cox did not implement its repeat infringer policy. Instead, Cox publicly purported to comply with its policy, while privately disparaging and intentionally circumventing the DMCAâ(TM)s requirements. Cox employees followed an unwritten policy put in place by senior members of Coxâ(TM)s buse group by which accounts used to repeatedly infringe copyrights would be nominally terminated, only to be reactivated upon request. Once these accounts were reactivated, customers were given clean slates.
5. The Court further found that starting in September 2012, Cox abandoned its tacit policy of temporarily suspending and reactivating repeat infringersâ(TM) accounts, and instead stopped terminating accounts altogether. Id. at 655-58.
7. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this Courtâ(TM)s holding, explaining that although âoeCox formally adopted a repeat infringer âpolicy,â(TM) . . . both before and after September 2012, [Cox] made every effort to avoid reasonably implementing that policy. Indeed, in carrying out its
thirteen-strike process, Cox very clearly determined not to terminate subscribers who in fact
repeatedly violated the policy.â 881 F.3d at 303. The former head of Coxâ(TM)s Abuse Group,
Jason Zabek, summed up Coxâ(TM)s sentiment toward its DMCA obligations best in an email
exclaiming: âoef the dmca!!!"
--
According to the complaint, Cox chose not to follow the DMCA requirements for safe harbor, and literally wrote "f the dmca!!!"
I'm sure Cox has their side of the story, but they already told the side of the story in court and after hearing thier side the judge already ruled that they did not in fact implement a reasonable policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the complaint, Cox chose not to follow the DMCA requirements for safe harbor, and literally wrote "f the dmca!!!"
I'm sure Cox has their side of the story, but they already told the side of the story in court and after hearing thier side the judge already ruled that they did not in fact implement a reasonable policy.
One action Cox could take would be to just say "OK, fine, we'll pay" and just switch it all off and close the doors. Tomorrow. Everything shut off. Wipe all customer account and company data. All the servers, switches, routers, peering points, everything wiped clean (oblig. "like with a cloth?"), and sell all that essential major-capital-investment-level hardware at fire-sale prices. Place the money in an escrow to pay against the "billions" the labels and studios claim they owe. Millions of customers sudde
or implement 13 strikes (Score:2)
Their on-paper policy was "thirteen strikes and you're out", if you have thirteen or more separate complaints filed against you, they were supposed to take action. They decided not to actually do that. Following that policy would have saved their ass. Thirteen strikes seems pretty generous to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Their on-paper policy was "thirteen strikes and you're out", if you have thirteen or more separate complaints filed against you, they were supposed to take action. They decided not to actually do that. Following that policy would have saved their ass. Thirteen strikes seems pretty generous to me.
And the original 13 American colonies could have avoided war by simply obeying all of King Henry's edicts and taxes.
The "Underground Railroad" activists who were caught and hung could have simply obeyed the law against helping escaped slaves flee.
Gun store owners who were prosecuted and imprisoned (and often lynched) for selling firearms to blacks could have simply obeyed the Jim Crow laws.
The courts, even the SCOTUS, are NOT the final arbiters of what is Constitutional and what is not.
We The People are.
Soa
Re: (Score:2)
And the original 13 American colonies could have avoided war by simply obeying all of King Henry's edicts and taxes.
King Who [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course none of that would have anything to do with the RIAA frivolously filing DMCA complaints for birdsong, personal non-music recordings titled similarly to an RIAA song, brief bits of songe in the background of recordings, and similar ass-hattery.
They should bring that up in court (Score:2)
Cox should certainly bring that up in court.
Of course, that was part of the reason for the "thirteen strikes" rule that Cox was supposed to implement, but didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the many false accusations, it is also reasonable to argue that a mere accusation is worthless to any policy, particularly when there is no legal consequence at all for a false accusation. Where's the proof, preferably in the form of a finding by a court of law?
Essentially an argument that given the public knowledge that the accusations tend to be based on nothing more than buggy algorithms and scanners that have been publicly documented to not only flag non-infringing content but also to accuse the w
Re:They should sue (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll fully support their actions when we go back to a 20 year copyright instead of the ridiculous 140 years under the current system. It is obscene that photos and recordings of WWII won't be freely available until generations that haven't even been born yet are adults.
Re: They should sue (Score:2)
The problem is that it generates revenue to extend copyrights. You make more money if people have to pay money for them, and you know how much you will make roughly since the prior years give you a sense of popularity. So, you use some of those funds to lobby Congress to give you more years of revenue generation.
On the other side, limiting the copyright saves you money, but no one actually realizes how much they save because the work was in the public domain. They don't "feel the savings". So they don't fee
Re: They should sue (Score:2)
Yes. That's the problem. The gains are concentrated in the large media companies, who have the incentive and the means to enforce their copyright. The losses are dispersed across 330 million consumers and a millions of small artists who aren't incentivized enough to push back.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to give anyone who doesn't know an idea HOW insane copyright actually is: The copyright for Mein Kampf expired in 2016.
Re:They should sue (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll fully support their actions when we go back to a 20 year copyright instead of the ridiculous 140 years under the current system. It is obscene that photos and recordings of WWII won't be freely available until generations that haven't even been born yet are adults.
LOL! In 20 years they're going to extend it all over again. God forbid that Steamboat Willie should ever enter the public domain.
(or maybe what we really need is for copyright owners to pay to extend protection beyond a certain time, eg. if Disney wants perpetual copyrights on its stuff then they should pay a yearly fee for it. Any stuff that isn't making a useful amount money will then enter the public domain automatically)
Re:They should sue (Score:4, Insightful)
Free for 20 years and then requiring a renewal fee would solve 90% of the copyright's problems. The fee bit is critical since it achieves two purposes, it solves the orphan work problem and it removes copyright protection from all of the non economically viable works. Plus it creates a database of exactly what is under copyright. I'm fine with 20 year renewal periods, but it would be for an escalating fee on each renewal. This model allows extremely costly works like big budget movies to maintain copyright indefinitely while simultaneously pushing all of the minor items that make up our culture into the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
But then you'd have a growing public domain competing with copyrighted works, which is not in the interests of the publishers, who feel that they have a right to collect rent on works forever without competition.
Re: (Score:3)
(or maybe what we really need is for copyright owners to pay to extend protection beyond a certain time, eg. if Disney wants perpetual copyrights on its stuff then they should pay a yearly fee for it. Any stuff that isn't making a useful amount money will then enter the public domain automatically)
After 5 years, require that it be submitted to the LoC for archival. After 10 years, start charging fees which double every year... Structure the initial fee such that it becomes expensive around year 25.
Re: (Score:2)
1% tax per year on profit if you want to keep the copyright. Copyright solves itself and revenue can still be gained if you're really desperate enough.
Nice twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice twist. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is where Net Neutrality was a benefit to them.
If they treated all traffic the same and didn't interfere or "shape traffic", they would have no liability to shape traffic in a way that limited piracy. What ISPs did, was show that they could shape traffic based on origin and were willing to do it when it benefited them but were not willing to limit the illegal activities of their subscribers.
Re: (Score:3)
Just this once, I hope the record companies win every penny. This will be an object lesson to ISPs in why they should lobby for common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaahahahaha, that's classic in its own right.
ISPs are lobbying for deregulation so they can do whatever the fsck they want and so now they should be directly responsible for everything they do as a result since they refuse to be classified as common carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you are not paying attention to debt. No matter what they fuck they do, no matter how hard they try, no matter how they corrupt law, there is simply no money out in the market to spend more on content consumption. So pure exercise in futility, there has to be money out there, there simply is not, that stone has been squeezed dry but insatiable greed is insatiable greed. Even though logically they know there is no money out there left to take most of it is already owed in one way or another, they s
Re: (Score:2)
there is simply no money out in the market to spend more on content consumption
This isn't true at all. We've seen a pretty massive increase in spending on content in the last ~15 years, a good portion of that driven by new revenue streams. The video games market has roughly doubled in that time, for example, driven in significant part by unregulated gambling (loot boxes).
Your suggestion that only rich people are actually spending on those loot boxes is untrue, it's well established that poorer people are more vulnerable to gambling addiction. Wales are pretty evenly spread across t
Re:Nice twist - common carrier status lost (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this touches upon common carrier status. Clearly if they have a right to throttle and selectively manage who people can communicate with by becoming a "selective" conduit, a right they have demanded in rejecting net neutrality, they are asserting they have both that right and also the explicit legal responsibility/liabilities for all traffic that does pass thru their network. Clearly the sharks are circling...
Re: Nice twist - common carrier status lost (Score:3)
Firstly, having a right to select which traffic goes through the network does not limit your common carrier status. Only acting on that right limits your common carrier status. Secondly, traffic shaping is not even close to what they are talking about with common carrier status; they are talking about censorship and controlling messaging.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firstly, having a right to select which traffic goes through the network does not limit your common carrier status. Only acting on that right limits your common carrier status. Secondly, traffic shaping is not even close to what they are talking about with common carrier status; they are talking about censorship and controlling messaging.
None of that is the case any longer.
It used to be true, as that was the case back in the 90's when the FCC classified companies as telecommunication carriers, which are the same laws that provided for common carrier classification as well.
All of the laws that let the FCC make such classifications were very recently repealed earlier this year, so no longer apply.
With the massive FUD campaign intentionally confusing what laws existed and what laws would disappear, I can understand the reason you would be unaw
Re: (Score:2)
If two people infringe copyright by exchanging USB keys in a restaurant, then are you saying that the restaurant is a secondary infringer, liable up to the same amount as the primary infringer?
No but if you setup a meeting place where two people could exchange USB keys by giving them to you first, and then handling the swap - yes - you would be.
I'm not sure they'd care (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whether i had 10gbit internet or dialup, i would still pirate music and the such. NN was a shitty rule.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Nice twist. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No one has mentioned the water companies, who have been complicit by allowing pirates to fill a kettle whenever they want. If these pirates weren't able to hydrate themselves the record companies wouldn't have "lost" millions of dollars. Someone should do something!
They've made a good start in Flint. Not much piracy from there...
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of drugs however!
Re: (Score:3)
How do ISPs "contribute" to piracy, and by that I mean that they do something that aids or enables piracy specifically, instead of just providing a conduit to anything and anyone?
Go back and read the Betamax [wikipedia.org] case and how it was a close 5-4 call that VCRs remained legal and that the majority opinion was initially the dissenting one. The law and courts have always struggled with products and services that are used to facilitate crime, because naturally it would be quite profitable if you could stay on the legal side and rent it out to crime while claiming ignorance. Think ships for piracy on the high seas, distilleries during prohibition, selling lock picks, date rape drugs, large amo
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Cox (Score:3)
We would like you to spend your profits to help our efforts. Its the moral thing to do. See you in court.
Re: (Score:2)
"His name was James Damore."
Are you starting a fight club? I mean, you can't talk about it, but are you saying that........"In death we have a name"?
Countersuit (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope Cox counter sues for all the money they take from their customers and shareholders to protect the music industry's decrepit business model.
The cost of processing those requests, the monies wasted with erroneous requests, and the cost of defending their policies.
Re:Countersuit (Score:4, Interesting)
And that doesn't even begin to cover consumer frustration when none of their AV equipment works with any of their other AV equipment. Or when a customer has to maintain a relationship with 5 different media delivery companies in order to access all the content they've purchased.
I could make a pretty good argument that the AA's have cost the legitimate content delivery industry billions of dollars. Their rabid defense of profits has the opposite effect that the various IP laws have been set up to encourage -- stifling innovation and creativity of content producers and delivery companies. Not that anything can really be done about it until the the public is willing to have what is really a pretty boring discussion about the sad state of IP law and how it should be fixed.
Besides, don't they already have a law that says they don't need to police their own user base as long as they take down content when notified about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Which wholly explains why ISPs haven't been fighting against Net Neutrality nor trying to throttle competitor services to get users behavior to favor their own services. Oh, right. They made their bed; they should lie in it.
Re:ISP's are not responsible - WRONG (Score:2)
ISP's are not responsible for anything their clients do.
They are a service provider. They have to provide a service without prejudice.
They don't have to monitor what the end users are doing. that would in fact be an invasion of privacy and probably be a human rights violation.
This is akin to blaming power companies for terrorism, as they used someones power while scheming their evil schemes.
That WAS the case when they were classified Title II -- common carriers. NOW they most certainly ARE liable, and I hope the RIAA wins every penny, and other ISPs wake up to the fact that they can be sued, and held criminally liable for:
* Allowing child porn (Oh I didn't know -- not an excuse anymore)
* Terrorist forums
* Software piracy
*
The Internet is a public utility that should be classified as Title II. I don't agree with this lawsuit, I think it is a load of horseshit. However, Cox wanted the FCC to rev
Here is the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Take all the music executives out back and cave their skull in with a sledgehammer. Problem solved. I'm tired of hearing about this shit. I don't care about their shitty-ass "Music" they produce anyways. I don't download. Couldn't care less about it. If they produce something of true value, people would buy it. What they produce is shit-drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
ake all the music executives out back and cave their skull in with a sledgehammer.
"Confucious say hollow head cave like eggshell - unsatisfying - but explode in microwave like Gremlin in sunlight."
Surely... (Score:5, Insightful)
... this is "alleged infringement" until such time it has been investigated and been proven.
Last time I checked, the "presumption of innocence" was still a corner-stone of the rule of law for most - nominally civilised - countries.
Re: Surely... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hahaha ha haha ha hahahahaha *wipes tears* hahaha ha haha ha ha....ha
Re: (Score:3)
DMCA provides safe harbor... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
automated complaints (Score:3)
That require the ISP to expend its resources to deliver.
A few words that could, you know, change things (Score:2)
"as we know it" e.g. There has been no scientific proof that the red planet could have sustained life as we know it eons ago
"in theory" e.g. the case could in theory cost Cox more than $1.5 billion
"will not run for President"
Dear Record Labels, (Score:4, Funny)
We are not your personal army.
-- Cox Communications
Record Labels vs Cable Carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
I know! (Score:2)
Stupid F**** (Score:1)
ISP's should band together and block all traffic to Sony for a year and blame it on a misconfigured router.
Sorry, BGP typo... my bad.
Re: Stupid F**** (Score:1)
Yea and warch their first kine support toraly melt down whenn all the playstation useres call an complain about psn being down while regoins nott effected bbthe Anti Sony campaign still beeing on line (thinks lke thar spred wuite quicly) or watch sony sue all us isps for sapotaging their buisnss wulh not blcing xbox live etc: watt a mess,. Nha let the courts sort it out rhis was round obe the war us far from over
Perfect example of Network Neutrality (Score:2)
In a truly "neutral" network, the contents of the packets does not matter to the carrier. Attempting to force censorship is a violation of that idea.
So the entertainment industry's ... (Score:2)
... data is getting monetized just like ours is.
We're all getting fucked without even a kiss and there ain't a goddam thing anybody can do about it.
How much? (Score:2)
So how much $ does Cox get to cover the costs associated with each copyright complaint from the record labels?
I'm assuming that there *is* a payment, since there is obviously a cost.
Cox should hike the fees associated with processing such complaints by a *significant* amount.
And if the record labels expects Cox to work on their behalf for free, how can they complain when some of Cox's customers expect to get their music for free?
Do these people not know how capitalism works?
Re: (Score:2)
do you think a torrent doesn't resume when you close the client? a torrent is broken up into a bunch of pieces and you receive small chunks at a time from various sources. it also gets checked to see if anything came corrupt, then re gets it from a different source. it however can saturate links which ISP's hate.