Slashdot Mirror
Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy
wabrandsma (2551008) writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:
BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music have sued Cox Communications for copyright infringement, arguing that the Internet service provider doesn't do enough to punish those who download music illegally.
Both BMG and Round Hill are clients of Rightscorp, a copyright enforcement agent whose business is based on threatening ISPs with a high-stakes lawsuit if they don't forward settlement notices to users that Rightscorp believes are "repeat infringers" of copyright. In their complaint (PDF), the music publishers also decided to publicly post IP addresses.
They're doing this because Rightscorp's current "threaten to pay with no proof" business model has become too risky - they've heard the rumblings about class action suits. Of course, since Cox isn't hosting the files in question, their liability is the same as the phone company's when someone calls someone else to make a death threat. Common Carrier.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Rightscorp is arguably afraid ISPs will refuse to cut off people under the DMCA unless a judge has ruled in a legitimate court proceeding that the person has infringed multiple times. They now propose to saddle ISPs with massive, expensive and interminable legal proceedings unless the ISP agrees to cut people off on mere accusation.
davecb@spamcop.net
Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.
This was the standard business practice of many record companies for many profitable years. The artist would pay everything including the cost of making the record (from their share), while the record company took 95% profits. I don't blame them for wanting to continue business as usual, I just don't see why our elected officials should assist them at our expense.
ISPs are required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to implement and maintain a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infnngers in order to maintain the safe harbor protection afforded by the DMCA from copyright infringement claims that the ISPs otherwise would enjoy.
This is just plain false. The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.
Perhaps that's why Rightscorp is going bankrupt. Judges don't like to be lied to. A good defense attorney (and my guess is they have one) will tear that to shreds.
They also say, in point 4:
Despite these notices and its actual knowledge of repeat infringements...
How do they know Cox "has actual knowledge"? Because they notified Cox? That's not "actual knowledge", that's just an allegation. A very different thing.
All in all, I think I see why Rightscorp and its clients have not been very successful at these suits. Hell, *I* could probably rip them to shreds in court... if it weren't for the fact that IANAL and so I don't know proper court procedure.
Torrents are an accepted distribution practice
Not only that, torrents are the technically superior distribution method for large files.
.: Semper Absurda
I tell them we will roll a truck to serve their paper for fifty bucks a letter. They think thats crazy, that we should be their process server for free. To date not one of them have agreed to pay us to roll a truck and hand people the letter.
My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.
...using pages straight from the SCO playbook.....
The DMCA contains no language calling for ISPs to "terminate" their subscribers over copyright claims. It's a lie.
I don't know if you're reading the same DMCA I'm reading, but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".
I know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.
I think you're probably thinking of barratry, although strictly speaking what Rightscorp is doing seems more along the lines of simple extortion.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
The lawsuit filed against rightscorp by the Pietz lawfirm reads very convincingly, and if successful will hold rightscorp's customers, officers, shareholders, etc personally liable for their illegal actions as a debt collection agency not following the rules of debt collection and going after debts that never existed.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247788809/1-Class-Action-Complaint-and-Jury-Demand
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247788798/1-1-Exhibits-a-to-E-to-Class-Action-Complaint
"To terminate" and "termination" are forms of the same verb: one an infinitive and the other one a derived noun. A sentence using one form can be reworded to use the other without changing the meaning. If a policy "provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances", then it calls for the provider "to terminate" service if "appropriate circumstances" have been met. OCILLA requires ISPs "to terminate" by requiring them to have "a policy that provides for [such] termination" and to follow this policy. The disagreement between the publishers and the ISPs is over what constitutes "appropriate circumstances" in such a policy.