Slashdot Mirror
Judge Wipes Out Safe Harbor Provision In DMCA, Makes Cox Accomplice of Piracy (arstechnica.com)
SysKoll writes: The DMCA is well-known for giving exorbitant powers to copyright holders, such as taking down a page or a whole web site without a court order. Media companies buy services from vendors like Rightscorp, a shake-down outfit that issues thousands of robot-generated take-down notices and issues threats against ISPs and sites ignoring them. Cox, like a lot of ISPs, is inundated with abusive take-down notices, in particular from Rightscorp. Now, BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music are suing Cox for refusing to shut off the Internet access of subscribers that Rightscorp accused of downloading music via BitTorrent. Cox argues that as an ISP, they benefit from the Safe Harbor provision that shields access providers from subscribers' misbehavior. Not so, says U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady. The judge sided with the media companies ahead of trial, saying Cox should have terminated the repeat offenders accused by Rightscorp. Cox's response is quite entertaining for a legal document (PDF): its description of Rightscorp includes the terms "shady," "shake-down," and "pay no attention to the facts." O'Grady also derided the Electronic Frontier Foundation's attempt to file an amicus brief supporting Cox, calling them hysterical crybabies.
So the judge is saying that Cox should shut off customers based on repeated allegations? As in, the proof isn't in yet and they've just been accused of something. Why even bother with trials or checking for proof then? Just fire a few dozen DMCA reports against random IP addresses and watch as people get taken offline. No proof required.
If this makes it into precedent/law, how long until many people accuse Rightscorp of copyright violations and take them offline? Or does the "guilty-and-taken-offline-before-proven-innocent" rule only apply if a company is accusing an individual. (To quote Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.")
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If the judge is clearly siding with one party ahead of trial, shouldn't they be able to get him off this case on grounds of being biased? Or is this also not a thing in the funky US justice system?
Bias being grounds for removal? Hell no. Not even when it's blatant.
Sorry, perhaps I should clarify first.
Our legal system has fuck-all to do with "justice" anymore.
How does someone clearly too stupid to be a judge get appointed as one? Or is he merely on the payroll of the media companies?
What a fucking useless asshat.
Well, he was appointed by George W. Bush.
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
When 'justice' is defined by corporate interests, it's time to stop pretending 'justice' has anything to do with it.
This is about corporations demanding the right to have 3rd party actors make unsubstantiated accusations, and without proof force ISPs to kick people off the internet because corporations say so.
Because they keep buying more badly written laws which basically lets them do anything they want without oversight or penalty by simply claiming copyright infringement.
But somehow I bet the people who claim about 'activist judges' will say this is perfectly OK, because it's in the interests of corporations.
This shit has to stop.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
When 'justice' is defined by corporate interests, it's time to stop pretending 'justice' has anything to do with it
Both sides are large corps on this case.
But somehow I bet the people who claim about 'activist judges' will say this is perfectly OK, because it's in the interests of corporations.
This shit has to stop.
I really doubt this. Even Rush Limbaugh has come out on the side of ad blockers and fair use.
U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady just declared himself a traitor to the USA...hopefully he'll be treated appropriately.
You think so? Let's see what Article 3 of the Constitution says about that:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Congress created the offense in 18 USC section 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
So, what's an enemy:
ENEMY, international law. By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. It also signifies a citizen or subject of such a nation, as when we say an alien enemy. In a still more extended sense, the word includes any of the subjects or citizens of a state in amity with the United States, who, have commenced, or have made preparations for commencing hostilities against the United States; and also the citizens or subjects of a state in amity with the United States, who are in the service of a state at war with them.
You could also look to the Bush-era definition of "enemy combatant", to include non-state actors:
'Enemy combatant' shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.
So, noted law scholar MitchDev, how is the judge in this case a traitor to the US?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
He's a federal judge. He was appointed, not elected.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
If the judge is clearly siding with one party ahead of trial, shouldn't they be able to get him off this case on grounds of being biased?
Or is this also not a thing in the funky US justice system?
Law suits happen in stages which are established largely by procedural rules. Deciding against one party on a motion isn't enough of an indicator of bias to get a judge removed.
Decisions about a conflict in the facts claimed by either side are made by a jury; decisions about the law are made by a judge. Sometimes you can get rid of some questions before the trial goes to a jury by just looking at the law. Like if both parties agree that I was really mean to you, but the law says being really mean isn't something you can sue over, then it doesn't have to go to a jury. Here, both sides agree Cox didn't cut off access, but Cox is claiming the safe harbor applies so it shouldn't even have to go to a jury.
Summary judgment motions are controlled by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ru...
Actually they have lost nothing yet as this has not gone to trial. I am sure this judge's comments will be used either to force his recusal or to get a pretty instantaneous appeal.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The packet header is quite easy to see, and your analogy is like saying the Post office can't be a common carrier because they read the envelope to get the address, so the are already inspecting the mail.
Nonsense. All the information an ISP needs are in the link and internet layers. Any deeper information is none of their business. The source and destination IPs are in the internet layer, and are similar to the destination and return addresses on the snail-mail envelope.
Doing any deeper packet inspection is akin to steaming open the envelope to see whether the letter is actually intended for the addressee or her kids (transport layer, application layer, etc.), or the content of the actual message. That's absolutely none of the ISP's business as a common carrier.
There is a huge difference between reading an IP or TCP/UP header and trying to piece together a stream of packets in order to determine the content.
No. There is a huge difference between reading an IP header, and reading a TCP header. As a common carrier, an ISP has no legitimate reason to do the latter. No more than the post office has any business opening the envelope to see whether the message starts with "Dear John," or ends with "Love always".
ISPs aren't common carriers and have never been common carriers. The FCC doesn't classify them as common carriers either. Really that's of no relevance though.
Actually, ISPs are classified by the FCC as common carriers and are actively fighting to not be classified as such.
Other than that, I am in agreement with you.