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.

21 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: 5, Insightful

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

      "Business As Usual."

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    5. 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.....

    6. 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
  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 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.

    4. 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
  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.
  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 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. youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The #1 piracy tool

  6. 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 :.
  7. 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 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?

  8. 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!