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.

6 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 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
  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).

  3. 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?