Cox Owes $1 Billion To Record Labels for Harboring Music Pirates, Jury Decides (theverge.com) 87
Over the past few years, record labels have been suing ISPs for not removing music pirates from their services, and this week, the record labels may have hit a tremendous victory. From a report: A US District Court jury has found Cox Communications liable for piracy infringement of more than 10,000 musical works, and as a result, has awarded $1 billion in damages to Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and EMI. Essentially, the recording industry just showed that a jury will buy its argument that an ISP should be held liable for failing to kick a music pirate off its network. And similar lawsuits like the one Cox lost today have been filed against Charter, Charter subsidiary Bright House Networks, RCN, and Grande Communications, so there's a chance that rulings against those companies could go similarly.
Are these judges corrupt? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The judges can dismiss or throw out the case. Or limit its scope etc.
This is why I refuse to do jury duty. If the judge will just toss the jury's verdict, then what is the point of having a jury? It should be a bench trial.
Re:Are these judges corrupt? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judges can only toss a guilty verdict
This is a civil trial. There are no guilty verdicts.
Re: (Score:3)
They’re more like a referee for the court case that tries to keep the jury focused on their actual job and prevent them from being swayed by arguments or information not based in law. A simple example
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Judges lie to juries and tell them they are only allowed to decide the facts of the case and not the law itself (even though juries are actually supposed to be a one off check against corrupt law and unjust application of the law). Being a jury trial loses its meaning in that case, the jury didn't decide this is valid, only that it is factual that people used the service to transmit music.
Re:Are these judges corrupt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Judges lie to juries and tell them they are only allowed to decide the facts of the case and not the law itself
This sentence makes no sense. If you've ever sat on a jury, you would know that the judge issues instructions on how to interpret the law in relation to the evidence provided while considering the totality of the circumstances. The jury is also asked to consider the validity of the evidence. You should read a jury instruction document. It's very enlightening in this subject. You would see that each instruction is cited in law. While the jury is not permitted to read the law per se, they do receive instruction on how to apply the law based on the evidence presented.
Your statement that they are not allowed to decide the "law itself" is senseless. How does one "decide the law"?
http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/j... [uscourts.gov]
Re:Are these judges corrupt? (Score:4, Informative)
It's called "Jury Nullification."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A jury may acquit a defendant even if they believe the defendant committed the crime. They would do this in the event that they thought the law itself was unjust (or really, for any other reason whatsoever).
A jury cannot be punished for giving a "wrong" verdict. And thanks to laws around double jeopardy, the defendant may not by tried again for the same crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. The courts have done their best to dismantle this as well twisting "same crime" to mean "same charge." They simply call the exact same wrongdoing a different crime and claim it isn't double jeopardy.
Re: (Score:3)
Jury Nullification protected the murderers of the civil rights movement from being punished for their crimes.
Re: Are these judges corrupt? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hahaha! Well done. Just like most things, a lot of experts on here without even the most basic knowledge. Everyone knows that Jury Nullification is hidden from the Jury, the jury do not realize they are the symbolic last line of defense against tyranny, and this is why they try and keep lawyers off of them!
I was on a jury that specifically ignored a judge's charging instruction and he (the judge) seemed to approve.
I have a friend who challenges statutory copyright challenges all the time. There is an ob
Re: (Score:2)
.... and this is why I'll never be allowed to serve on a jury - I'm an informed juror - and the judges and lawyers most certainly don't want that!
Re: (Score:1)
"How does one "decide the law"?"
"judge issues instructions on how to interpret the law"
^ The judge deciding what the law is. The jury is direct democracy, they are the "the people", there is no higher court that can set precedents which bind their decisions.
Of course attorneys and judges will often through bias act as if it is some sort of bug or loophole that the courts have no authority to punish "unruley" juries but the reality is the courts are outranked by juries up to and including the supreme court a
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I note anonymous posting has been disabled.
No, it hasn't; but the rules have changed (thank Bob!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The judge tells the jury that they must find the defendant guilty under certain circumstances, which is a lie. Juries cannot be held accountable for the verdicts they deliver. They are legally free to deliver either verdict, period.
Re:Are these judges corrupt? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does one "decide the law"?
Broadly speaking, the judge does so by deciding questions of law (e.g. is this law legal? what does this law mean?). As you alluded to, the result of that is that they then interpret the law for the jurors and provide the jurors with instructions on how the law should be applied. That's the judge's job. Relatedly, it's the jury's job to then decide the facts of the case (i.e. does the evidence prove this person is guilty according to this law?).
Where things get complicated is that (A) the jury is the final decider, (B) the jury cannot be punished for a "wrong" decision, and (C) an acquittal is final due to double jeopardy. As such, a jury is de facto empowered to usurp the judge's decisions on questions of law and/or ignore the judge's instructions, effectively allowing them to "nullify" laws by refusing to convict people who are seemingly guilty according to the letter and spirit of the law.
That's how a jury might "decide the law", and when they do so it's called "jury nullification", which is what the GP was referring to.
The practice was widely used in the North leading up to the American Civil War, with Northerners refusing to convict runaway slaves or those who assisted them. Likewise, there are those today who believe that marijuana should be legalized, so they'll use jury nullification to let off anyone who would otherwise be found guilty of illegally possessing marijuana.
Because jury nullification directly subverts the rule of law (not to mention the judge's job), people are generally barred from raising the topic in or around court (e.g. people have been arrested for distributing fliers about it outside of courthouses) and judges tend to take a very dim view of the practice. Even so, it's technically not illegal (it's impossible to make it illegal without destroying the impartiality of jury' deliberations), so it's a false statement for a judge or lawyer to suggest that the practice is invalid. In fact, the courts have repeatedly found that judges are in the wrong if they provide instructions such as "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification" or suggest that juries are only permitted to rule on the case, rather than on the law. I believe it's those sorts of statements that the GP was getting at.
Of course, every voir dire I've sat through as a potential juror has involved questions intended to root out people intent on using jury nullification. E.g. "Presuming you believe we have established beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements required by law, is there anyone here who would still be unwilling to convict on the basis of this law?". Since you're under oath, you can be held accountable for those answers later if it turns out you lied about your impartiality or willingness to convict on the basis of the law alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the flip side, nullifying the law on murder when it was a white man killing a black man, which was quite common after the civil war.
There's also the whole equality before the law, what happens if only a certain class of people have their drug charges nullified?
There's also the opposite, where a jury decides someone must be guilty, even if the evidence isn't there
Re: Are these judges corrupt? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it is something to consider carefully and perhaps only use in the extreme cases.
There's also the question of what are considered tyrannical laws. Here, one of the most famous cases of jury nullification led to throwing out the abortion laws, which some would consider tyrannical, OTOH, those same nullification cases led to enshrining the principle of double jeopardy first in law then in the Constitution, mostly because the people got pissed off at the government overriding the juries nullification.
Re: (Score:3)
Juries aren't permitted to read the law? Huh? That seems like a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Judges lie to juries and tell them they are only allowed to decide the facts of the case and not the law itself (even though juries are actually supposed to be a one off check against corrupt law and unjust application of the law). Being a jury trial loses its meaning in that case, the jury didn't decide this is valid, only that it is factual that people used the service to transmit music.
Unsure why this is labelled troll. It's an accurate description of why jury trials were implemented and also a good check on government power. Just because 'the man' doesn't like it too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably due to the accusation that judges lie. I'm often excused from a jury when I tell the judge that I reserve the right as a juror to disregard instructions (usually on some technicality) that I feel impede the ultimate cause of 'justice'. Judges don't like that and the attorneys go along. The judge is there to instruct on the law to facilitate, not dictate, justice. The flip side is that some juries idea of justice, particularly in civil cases, can be rather extreme. That's o
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the right to convict someone based on feelings instead of facts/evidence is an important right.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not... Cox, as a residential ISP is rated higher that any other US ISP last time I checked, but they may have opened themselves up to this... I don't believe they forward takedown requests/copyright claims or complaints to the users that do torrents and get caught. They might have ignored a few too many notices, at their own peril.
Come on! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
an ISP is not the state! (Score:2)
an ISP is not the state!
Re: (Score:2)
they Lease the roads and by IL law it may require permission by the General Assembly’s Joint Commission on Administrative Rules to post limits below 70 m.p.h. on those tollways.
There was this rent a car firm that tried to hit users with an private speeding fine and the state said no to that.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are only doing it because the State told them to, then they have become an extension of the State.
force ISP to at least have data meter certificatio (Score:2)
force ISP to at least have data meter certification before they even start to log downloads per user account.
what about that Comcast public wifi on the comcast gateway / router in your home?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they arrest the music pirate instead? Too logical? Not enough money involved? Come on!
They can't identify the pirate. Remember the record industries have been loosing cases directed at pirates where the only info known about "them" is their IP address.
Re: (Score:2)
They tried that, it didn't go so well because all they could do was identify an IP address that their dubious software claimed had shared something, not an actual person to be held liable.
What they can do is show that an ISP has a number of pirating customers and doesn't do much to stop them. They only need to sue once for their billion dollar payout too.
Royalties (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal fees 200M
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Royalties (Score:4, Informative)
Money says that the artists get rewarded a grand total of $2 apiece from this settlement.
If they don't own the copyrights to their own work, then they have no right to any compensation. That's how the (old) system works. As long as they keep signing them away, it will continue.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah right... The artists are getting exactly $0.00 of this settlement. I'm sure the trial included all sorts of pleas to the jurists' sympathies for all of the starving artists out there but at the end of the day this settlement or any incidental ramifications of it are not for them.
Anyone have more details/analysis? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cox was found guilty of infringment claims on 10,017 pieces of work -- the full amount charged by plaintiffs -- and fined $99,830.29 per work.
I really hope that this gets reduced (or even overturned) on appeals, because that's a egregious sum and I can't see any clear connection to reality. I can't think of a single cable company that I like in any way, but the scummy fucks at the RIAA make them look downright saintly by comparison.
Cox suckers (Score:1)
Not much that we didn't already know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anyone have more details/analysis? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the previous lawsuit this will probably be tossed on appeal. Though it's a bit tricky, the law doesn't require Cox to cut off repeat offenders though they can't put an arbitrary cap on DMCA notices. As long as Cox is transmitting the DMCA notices and removing content they have the capability to remove they should be blameless under the safe harbor provisions in the law.
People need to remember, a win in a lower court isn't always a win. Judges can be biased and the fix for that is the appeal process.
Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, I have no sympathy for big ISPs.
On the other hand, this is horrible legal precedence that could have a chilling effect on free speech online. It's the equivalent of arresting AT&T execs because someone used a landline to plan a murder.
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
and meter certification! (Score:2)
and meter certification!
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conflicted (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called common carrier status. It would grant them immunity. The FCC is fighting in court, they just won at the appellate level, to not have broadband listed as telecommunications.
Those ISPs paid a lot of money and made a lot of promises for years to be classified, not as telecommunication carriers, but as service providers.
They got their hard earned wish in 2015.
Service providers have no such protections like common carrier status does for telecommunication companies.
After the many billions of dollars the ISPs spent for this situation, it is simply unfathomable they do not desire court case outcomes exactly like what happened.
Their execs could only be the most happy and ecstatic people on the planet right now at this legal outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the reaction to this is going to be the ISP's doing something you will like...
The music industry has to be sunk. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
oh well (Score:2)
guess we will now see a lot of out of court settlements from the other companies that is also being sued. wonder if this also means the isps will be tracking customers usage a lot closer. not too sure about this verdict, there could be a lot of unintended consequences from much much, much higher cable bills to subscribers losing their service for what another family member did online.
how can an ISP decide (Score:5, Insightful)
if a packet of data that just arrived and is about to be forwarded
is holding copyrighted material or not?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that... doesn't answer the question?
I've said it before... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the cost to manufacture and distribute a good reaches effectively zero, the only way to make money off of distributing it is to create artificial scarcity through threat of violence. (A.K.A. force of law)
I've been watching the old-style recording industry go through its death and rebirth throes for decades now. It's an interesting study in the power of entrenched money to corrupt government, law, and economics, at least for a time.
Eventually the fact that copying and distributing a handful of megabytes of information adds zero value will get rid of the dead weight, but it sure takes a while.
Artists create, producers & engineers turn that creation into a thing that can be shared or sold, marketers and graphic artists help with promotion, services sell or stream the information and make access & discovery convenient and enjoyable, and lots of other folks have helping hands in the process. All add value, and can be monetized. Sending the bits over the wire, not so much, at least not on the individual unit scale.
Remember, music and making a living through making music existed for many centuries before "recording" existed. The vast industry creating and selling physical recording media was a brief blip in history. It'll be interesting seeing how the next century shakes this out.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Remember, music and making a living through making music existed for many centuries before "recording" existed."
While that is true, it isn't really a valid thing here. Once recording hit, there was no need to employ live musicians to perform thousands of events over and over. One can just listen to a recording any time/where they like. Once things turned digital and networks, there was no need to buy restricted/limited physical media anymore.
Copyright, when done properly (which should be something l
That will be appealed (Score:2)
I see one of two eventual outcomes (Score:2)
ISP will appeal and win; everything goes back to the way it was.
ISP will appeal and lose; ISPs start getting serious about kicking pirates off their networks.
Getting serious only means showing they did their due diligence to kick them off. Sacrifice the top 1% bandwidth users. 3 strikes and you're permabanned from the internet. Has nothing to do with whether you actually committed copyright infringement or their ability to prove it. As long as they can say to a judge "we did our part to stop the pirates
Re: (Score:2)
The ISPs know which subscriber had which IP when. They not only hand out the IPs, they configure the modems themselves dynamically.
Safe Harbor (Score:2)
What about this doesn't apply in this case? https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Isn't this the whole point of that clause?
Re:Safe Harbor (Score:4, Insightful)
What will they pay in? (Score:2)
Hopefully they pay the fine in nothing but second-hand and remaindered CDs, but claim they're all worth full original cover price. I mean, that's how the RIAA pays its fines, so why shouldn't that be a valid way to pay them when you lose a lawsuit?
Freedom of speech (Score:2)
A jury has decided that a broadband service must censor/prevent 'criminal' behaviour: That is a vague and disturbing authority to vest in a corporation. Big Social Media corporations are already forced to censor criminal acts (Eg. kiddie porn; and in most countries, hate speech) and this ruling forces ISPs to assume responsibility for the content of data-streams.
This is a repeat of US DoJ 'you must report all conspiracies' bullshit. ISPs have no way of detecting the truth or a legal process for identi
A sham case but opening act for total war (Score:1)
I have a friend who challenges statutory copyright challenges all the time. There is an obvious proportionality problem when an electronic song theft is treated as 500x worse than shoplifting (35x damages vs 100,000x (not a typo) )
Statutory damages were the product of a failing recording industry attempting to put band aids on the Titanic after ripping off the consumer and the artist for years. They've found their one pet judge and their one deep pocket and they are trying to milk it for all it's worth.
Th