Music Pirates Are Not Terrorists, Record Labels Argue In Court (torrentfreak.com) 46
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the labels. This landmark ruling is currently under appeal. As part of the appeal, Cox informed the court of a supplemental authority that could support its position. The case in question is Twitter vs. Taamneh, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platform isn't liable for ISIS terrorists, who used Twitter to recruit and raise funds. The Supreme Court rejected (PDF) the claim that Twitter aided-and-abetted terrorist activity, because it didn't "consciously and culpably" participate in the illegal activity. According to Cox, the same logic applies in its case, where the ISP was held liable for the piracy activities of subscribers.
"These same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law's contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here," an attorney for Cox informed the court. Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where "culpable expression and conduct" or "intent" were not required. "Though Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict," Cox added. The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services.
According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn't liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently. Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court (PDF), countering Cox's arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn't apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws. While the music industry certainly isn't happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists. After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn't directly connected to the misconduct. The platform's role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox's connection to its subscribers. Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue.
"These same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law's contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here," an attorney for Cox informed the court. Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where "culpable expression and conduct" or "intent" were not required. "Though Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict," Cox added. The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services.
According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn't liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently. Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court (PDF), countering Cox's arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn't apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws. While the music industry certainly isn't happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists. After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn't directly connected to the misconduct. The platform's role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox's connection to its subscribers. Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue.
Cox has as much to do with its subscribers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, yeah. 100%. Capitalists literally ruin anything they touch.
Re: Cox has as much to do with its subscribers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
LMAAAO, if not capitalist, then apparently Marxist fascist. Lmao, you're so fucking stupid. Capitalism is impossible to sustain forever. And because of that, capitalists are the ones that always eventually become fascists, you stupid dolt. There are plenty of other possible systems out there besides the two.
Also, capitalists do not voluntarily cooperate. To do so, would make them not capitalists.
Re: Cox has as much to do with its subscribers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you, retarded fuckstick, seem to think that we actually have free market capitalism, which we DON'T. Free market capitalism doesn't have a federal minimum wage, antitrust laws, regulatory govt bodies, corporate taxes, and tariffs. Imagine not understanding what economic system countries have. Oh, wait, you already don't.
Okay, labels say music pirates aren't terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
But some people might argue that the record labels themselves share many similarities with terrorists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Everyone I don't like is a terrorist" GWBush is that you? Record labels as terrorists, that's not really true, is it?
If anything, record labels are involved in racketeering.
This would be like... (Score:1)
Suing the US federal government for aiding and abetting anyone that uses a car to commit a crime. The government built the roads used to get away from the scene of the crime. Heck, the government also gave ISPs money to build out their network, so it's also the government's fault that people pirated on those same networks.
This would be like me suing Ford because a drunk driver ran into me driving a Ford.
But it's also a lot like suing a gun maker for crimes committed by someone with a gun (and clearly that's
Re: (Score:2)
That's a laugh! Before the internet, people recorded CDs onto tape for friends all the time. Most any teen's music collection would be more than 50% recorded tapes from friends. It's just that the RIAA had no way to track any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I could record the radio or dub a tape but I couldn't really make any money off it. Now, you have websites that let you download other peoples' work while they sell advertisement.
All the same, anyone pirating knows they are taking without giving back but since it's viewed as a victimless crime or otherwise a practically impossible to get caught crime, it's considered a-okay!
I totally get it if there isn't a legal way to get the content but most pirates just want to consume someone else's efforts witho
Re: (Score:2)
There are people that do not believe in your imaginary property rights. Full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people the RIAA goes after make no money from the copying.
As for the rest, I wasn't even attempting to address any of that. I was only attacking the bizarre claim that the internet is a great enabler of piracy rather than just an adjunct.
Re: This would be like... (Score:1)
Re: This would be like... (Score:2)
That's Just Business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. But the point is, if Twitter isn't responsible for the terrorists using its platform, then how on Earth is an ISP responsible for users pirating? That's like saying, if I steal something from Walmart, a separate organization representing Walmart can go after my landlord for giving me residence to store the stolen items. It doesn't make sense.
So, yes, the comparison to terrorists seems odd, but it's to point out the hypocrisy between these rulings - especially when terrorism is much, much worse than pir
Re: Good grief. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely no one is suggesting that music pirates should be tried as terrorists, so imagine having some reading comprehension.
The difference (Score:3, Insightful)
ISIS attacks civilians and soldiers, music pirates 'attack' corporate profits: One of these is much more valuable than the other.
Re:The difference (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already been proven that pirates (of music, software, etc.) do not have a negative effect on the profits of the related companies. The only thing actually hurting their profits are themselves as they spend money trying to close a "money hole" that never existed in the first place. The RIAA (just like the MPAA) and their lawyers are packed to the brim with absolute morons who would probably try arguing with a plastic bag covering their faces. They may be "powerful" but dear god are they some of the stupidest humans on the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but you make one mistake. It's not about the money (not that they wouldn't love billions more in profits), it's about power and control. They want absolute dominion on their product where artists clamor desperately to make art for them nearly for free, the gatekeepers demanding sexual favors for access [huffpost.com] while dictating what the people's choices are for entertainment. They fear honest competition and alternate sources for distribution more than the copying of a song or movie. The last thing they wan
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, it's not about the money for them personally. But it's always framed as being about the money, which is why I go so hard on that point. I wouldn't say they were absolute morons if they just admitted they do it for power and control. Then again, if they admit it, everyone probably sees them for the evil they are and quickly abandons them.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I try to out the copyright cartels for what they are and what their real motives are at every opportunity. It's probably makes about as much impact as a fart in a hurricane, but if enough people do it...
Re: (Score:2)
They have no obligation to enforce things on behalf of music labels,
They technically don't have an obligation. However, if the ISP is aware of the copyright infringement taking place over their network they are likely on the hook for contributory infringement. So, they could choose not to do anything with the DMCA notice they receive. However, by doing nothing they lose their safe harbor protections and can be shown to know of the infringement taking place.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, then JP Morgan is on the hook for the suspicious activity of Hunter Biden. https://media.marcopolousa.org... [marcopolousa.org]
Bribery, corruption, influence peddling with foreign adversaries, money laundering
Everything I don't like is Terrorism (Score:2, Interesting)
Never thought I'd see that as an actual ruling in USA court. Now THAT is hilarious! This is some Team America world police style stuff. Haven't seen real comedy like this since after 9/11.
Actual terrorism: (Score:3)
Zoom meeting from a hospital in North Carolina with Dr. Mary Rudyk and Carolyn Fisher discussing inflating Covid numbers by counting recovered patients as active Covid patients.
"I think we have to be more blunt, we have to be more forceful, we have to say something coming out, you know you don't get vaccinated, you know you're going to die. I mean, let's just be really blunt to these people."
"We need to be more scary to the public. If you don't get vaccinated, you know you're going to die."
At a time when pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But pirates are terrorists! (Score:2)
Piracy More Important, then? (Score:2)
So, they're trying to say that piracy is MORE important and SHOULD be dealt with over actual terrorists? Sounds about right, guys!
So copyright infringement is worse than terrorism? (Score:2)
Yep, makes sense in an utterly greed-controlled perverted variant of "capitalism".