Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy

Posted by timothy on from the you-must-crack-the-whip dept.

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.

47 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What do you suppose they think would be "enough" to punish copyright violaters? (Maybe they could start by using proper terminology?)

    1. Re:I wonder.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rightscorp is on the verge of bankruptcy, as it has not been very successful with its lawsuits. It is also being sued right now by some of its "victims", who claim its practices have been illegally intimidating and coercive, and otherwise legally unsound.

      In other words, from what I read recently at EFF "Rightscorp" probably has little to do with IP "rights" at all... it is just another copyright troll looking to scare money out of Mom and Pop.

      But they haven't been very successful at that game. My guess is that this is a last-gasp effort to make some money before it goes under.

    2. Re:I wonder.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative
      Also, I see in the BMG and Round Hill v Cox complaint linked by OP, that the complainants say in their point 3:

      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.

    3. Re:I wonder.... by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rightscorp has followed a simple process all along.
      Make threats to intimidate and milk them for money (extortion) and not actually go to court. 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 suspect they are betting that Cox would rather fork over dough than actually go to court for anything if it's not too high of a cost, and that's what they are betting on. If Cox is dumb enough to do that, then they can use that for additional leverage to force other companies to pony up instead of going to court. Remember, often companies don't care if they are guilty or not, they just choose the cheaper method of resolution.

    4. Re:I wonder.... by easyTree · · Score: 2

      What do you suppose they think would be "enough" to punish copyright violaters? (Maybe they could start by using proper terminology?)

      I'm going to go with "force them to listen to the 'music' produced by this generation's music industry."

      That should be punishment enough for most crimes (even imaginary ones.)

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    5. Re:I wonder.... by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith

      "Business As Usual."

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    6. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:I wonder.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      know the lawyers have a legal term for this kind of bad faith, but I've no idea what it is right now.

      Haha. Business as usual. :)

      Actually, I think it IS extortion. Normally, telling somebody you're going to sue them is not considered a "threat"... as long as you actually have a reasonable basis to sue and you really intend to do it.

      But telling somebody "pay up or we'll sue", when you don't have any actual intention to sue (and they don't... because judges don't allow those mass suits anymore, and individual suits would be way too expensive) you are just plain lying. And I think -- I don't know for sure -- that WOULD be considered intimidation and you would in fact be extorting somebody.

    8. Re:I wonder.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.....

    9. Re:I wonder.... by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    10. Re:I wonder.... by davydagger · · Score: 2
      when every last bit of media and equipment to use and produce any media is "owned" by the RIAA/MPAA, in the sense where they have complete control over what gets published, and somehow get a percent of profit for any and all time any bit of media gets consumed by anyone, anywhere, at all times.

      With that, complete control over the message, and with that, complete unwaiving control of what people believe in, as part of complete compliance to all advertising and messages espoused by partners, as sold to the highest bidder.

    11. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

  2. All of this is extralegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright is supposed to be a first-party concern and rightsholders seem uniformly determined to make other people do their dirty work (without even getting paid).

    1. Re:All of this is extralegal by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yea rights holders want everyone else to do the work, foot the bill, while rights holders collect 100% of the $.

    2. Re:All of this is extralegal by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope it goes forward.

      Not because I want the recording industry to shut them down, but because common carriers are exempt from the responsibility over their traffic. That is really the best solution for ISPs so they are no longer liable for the content that travels over the wire.

      ISPs getting reclassified as common carriers is a major step toward net neutrality, as common carriers are not allowed to discriminate over what they carry.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    3. Re:All of this is extralegal by reub2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.

    4. Re:All of this is extralegal by currently_awake · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:All of this is extralegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But of course! In the new America, law enforcement is *everyone's* responsibility. You know, if you see something, say something! There's a multibillion dollar prison-industrial complex that isn't going to sustain itself, somebody's gotta feed the monkey. When having an army of jackbooted thugs and ravenous lawyers just isn't keeping you in your fix, you'll shift the responsibility onto someone else and legislate that they do your job for you.

    6. Re:All of this is extralegal by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      Nope. Common carriers can be held repsonsible for turning a blind eye to illegal traffic.

      Indictment != Conviction

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    7. Re:All of this is extralegal by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just don't see why our elected officials should assist them at our expense.

      Because reelection campaigns cost a lot of money these days.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    8. Re:All of this is extralegal by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      You seem to fail to grasp the difference between innocent before being guilty and the corrupt nature of modern 'US' law enforcement using charges as extortion and using the prosecutorial process as punishment to force certain kinds of 'ILLEGAL' behaviour. So net neutrality goes hand in hand with common carrier status and is required just like the favourite slashdot analogy road and no local government, state and federal government should not be prosecuted for all the illegal actions on public roads and the internet is the digital equivalent of a public road.

      So the real question facing us now is should the internet be paid for by taxes and a minimum broad band standard provided to everyone for free, so as to save the whole community money, in terms of billing costs, repeated management and corporate douche baggery and demand for infinite profits. Just imagine what public roads would be like if there was a toll on every footpath, every road, every intersection, every bridge and every driveway leading to that road. So the internet as freely available infrastructure with everyone saving or tolls upon tolls upon tolls, which really makes the most sense.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re: All of this is extralegal by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Any story about 'rightsholders' who are not the creators of work evokes my automatic Big Fat Don't Care response. Go, torrenters!

    10. Re:All of this is extralegal by Sique · · Score: 2

      You seem to fail to grasp the difference between criminal law and common law. Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept and doesn't exist in common law. There the general benchmark is preponderance of evidence. And here we have a common law case.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  3. The real reason? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:The real reason? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But they're not Common Carrier, and this lawsuit may push that over the last hump. The sooner, the better, honestly.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:The real reason? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They are "like a common carrier". And too often we think of them as common carriers. But they have fought tooth and nail to have their cake and eat it too... the providers want all the common carrier exemptions but none of the restrictions, and they are NOT common carriers.

      As you say, anything that pushes them over the hump would be a good thing.

    3. Re:The real reason? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
      Definition of common carrier:

      The legal definition of Common Carrier is A carrier who accepts to transport goods or passengers indiscriminately.

      They just don't want to be subject to the rules, but the times, they are a'changin'.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:The real reason? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're not a common carrier, they got something in many ways better: USC 17512. Being an ISP is under section (a):

      (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. - A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providerâ(TM)s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -
      (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
      (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
      (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
      (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
      (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

      Notice anything in particular missing from this section? No DMCA notice, that only applies to (b) Caching, (c) Hosting and (d) Searching. They can send all those DMCA notices to /dev/null and it's legally kosher and they got full immunity. I expect Cox Communications will have this case thrown out quickly assuming they have a competent lawyer.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. No proof by bl968 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rightscorp can't claim the subscriber is actually infringing their customers copyright, as their software tool can simply see if the information is available from the host in question but it cannot tell anything else about it. They have no way to know that anyone other than their self has actually downloaded the information in question. They can only guess and I hate to say it but you can't sue over speculation.

    54,000 claimed infringements over 64 days sounds like a lot, but it's basically just under once per second, and claiming each time is another incident of infringement. So basically their software is constantly checking the ip, and this could be argued constitutes theft of service since both Cox and the customer in question pays for the bandwidth.

    As for them downloading the information themselves, since the tool and the company that runs it is authorized by the copyright holder to search for and access their copyrighted files one could easily argue that no actual infringement taking place.

    I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints, I think 10$ per complaint sounds about right. So 54,000 x $10 = $540,000. Plus attorney fees and costs for this frivolous lawsuit.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:No proof by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Your proposed charge for complaints is too low by at least an order of magnitude.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:No proof by fafalone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's worse than that; Rightscorp doesn't even verify that your computer is actually capable of sending the file. The one and only notice I ever received was on a torrent that I uploaded 0 bytes on since it was all seeders when I connected, dl'd, and disconnected 5 minutes later. They don't even download a single byte of the file, let alone enough to verify it is in fact their content. I can't say if they connected but didn't download and used that as "verification"; but I strongly suspect the connection was/would have been refused entirely since I run up to date blacklisting. And since the notice specifically claimed I was 'sharing' it I doubt they hosted the material, let me download it from, and want to claim that as infringement.
      So my IP was listed in a swarm for 5 minutes and didn't upload a single byte of their content, and my ISP took the time and money to respond their bs and pay to send me a physical letter about it. What I did to that notice is not just not appropriate to talk about here... /b/ would sure appreciate it though.

  5. Hey, RIAA! Are your profits still in the dumps? by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 2

    Then how about you fire your lawyers and hire some TALENT instead of just T and A?

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  6. Re:The real reason? The ISPs want court orders by davecb · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  7. Re:Block all BitTorrent traffic by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Its main purpose is to facilitate piracy.

    Wrong. It's purpose is to distribute content. That it's alleged main purpose being is to facilitate piracy is only accurate to the extent that the content that people seem to actually want to distribute happens to be pirated. Before bitorrent, people were using ftp. Before that, they were downloading from dial-up bulletin boards. Before that, they were photocopying books and before that they were manually copying stuff by hand.

    Piracy has been around for as long as copyright itself... it is not driven by the availability of tools that might accomplish it, it is driven by much more fundamental aspects of human nature.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  8. youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The #1 piracy tool

  9. Re:Download? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    People still download music?

    Yes, most just call it streaming now. It's still downloading, and the RIAA doesn't like it.

  10. Re:Block all BitTorrent traffic by dltaylor · · Score: 2

    Neither of the NetBSD 6.1.5 torrents I'm seeding (for the last several days) is "pirated". Torrents are an accepted distribution practice for a wide range of software.

  11. Re:Block all BitTorrent traffic by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

    Torrents are an accepted distribution practice

    Not only that, torrents are the technically superior distribution method for large files.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  12. Re:Block all BitTorrent traffic by kuhnto · · Score: 2

    Did you forget the first rule of usenet?

    --
    "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
  13. Re:You get my point? by TropicalCoder · · Score: 2

    Agreed, except - this isn't even about people who download copyrighted material without permission. This is about allegations that people are downloading copyrighted material without permission. That's all - allegations. There was nothing proven in a court of law - just some scum bag outfit like John Steele & Co. called "Rightscorp" pointing their fingers at IP addresses that may or may not connect with people they are accusing of downloading.

  14. 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    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".

    1. Re:17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) by penix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 was going to say the same thing but the point remains that Rightscorp would have to overcome the wide open ""in appropriate circumstances" clause in the DMCA as well as be able to prove that a particular IP in a dynamic IP block constitutes a "repeat offender". Good luck with that...

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) by Cederic · · Score: 5, Informative

      So if someone is found guilty of copyright infringement twice Cox may need to terminate their account.

      Who's been found guilty so far?

  15. Re:An act of infringement by TropicalCoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do they even know it was "Cox subscriber having IP address 24.252.149.211", as opposed to his neighbour who tapped into his WiFi?

    Lest someone think this is a lame excuse, let me tell you my own experience...

    The first month after I got the internet connection set up in my new place, my ISP noted my 64 gb data cap was exceeded, and they made a courtesy call to see if they could up sell me on more bandwidth. I was totally shocked, because I know my normal data usage would never come close to that limit. Somebody obviously cracked my relatively simple password and hacked into my modem. I immediately changed that to the longest password it would accept, and there has been no more data overages since. What do you suppose my WiFi was being used for? Could well have been for downloading copyrighted material, which certainly I hadn't been doing. What if the copyright police came after me for this? I would be pretty pissed off!

  16. Re: Define "appropriate circumstances" by tepples · · Score: 2

    Then let me rephrase my claim in light of your comment: Perhaps Rightscorp and its clients are trying to get a court to tell the ISP what "appropriate circumstances" are for termination.

  17. Word games with the form of "terminate" by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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.

  18. The solution is simple by sstamps · · Score: 2

    STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC!

    Stop downloading their music.

    Ignore their entire existence.

    I don't care if you /like/ it. If you buy it or download it, you are giving them monetary and mindshare resources to continue to punish their customers and act improperly.

    When they are penniless, perhaps they will see the error of their ways. Probably not, but then no one will give a fuck about them any more, and they can do no more harm.

    In short, STOP feeding the monster.

    INSTEAD, buy/download music from GOOD actors in the market. Support them in spite of the BAD actors. Support the artists directly. Never support any labels unless they eschew being part of organizations like RIAA and ASCAP.

    I have done this for over twenty years. I am very happy with the music that is available to me, and also very happy that I don't support the bad actors in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I do all I can to put them out of business.

    You can do it, too. ALL of you.

    Take a stand. Make a difference.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."