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.
If ISPs want to function in a way that disregards their common-carrier status, then they should be responsible for what's on their networks. Let's see how they feel about common carrier status when they're legally liable for child porn transmitted by third parties over their networks.
Everyone with some kind of registered copyright should file a DMCA complaint against anything the judge has online.
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?
What, you didn't actually think having a full manned staff department inside your ISP wasn't going to cost them, and thus you, any extra. Right?
Life is not for the lazy.
Sorry, judge Liam O'Grady, but you're a moron.
Rightscorp has been found to be making fraudulent claims, misrepresenting themselves, and doing little more than running a shakedown racket.
If accusations by an incompetent shady organization are enough to cut off access, that's a terrible precedent.
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.
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.
Apparently Judge O'Grady was a former Disney lawyer. Wouldn't/Shouldn't he be required to recuse himself from a case like this?
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
In light of this interesting news, I have started my own rights-protection company.
Here at RighterKorp, we employ state-of-the-art technologies to track down copyright violations and identify the violators with 100% precision. Either that, or we just make shit up. In either case, under the DMCA ISPs are required by law to immediately comply with our outrageous and hugely disproportionate demands, immediately depriving their customers the benefit of essential services they have bought and paid for, despite the fact that we provide no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing.
Otherwise, we sue. Our industry-leading "judicial partnership" program helps us to achieve a high percentage of favorable rulings, in many cases before the actual trial.
We are now accepting new clients, especially those who made a series of pornos on VHS tape in the nineties, and then put them on YouTube under an alias and want to sue Google over it.
"Innocent until proven guilty is for liberal pussies!" said the judge.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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
I want to take down all of Taylor Swift's songs and videos from the web. Can I, by any chance, hire you to force the internet to take them all down until she proves that I *don't* own the copyright?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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...
USC 17512 Limitations on liability relating to material online
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.â"
(1) Accommodation of technology. â" The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider â"
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, 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; and
Nobody has dared poke this part of the law with a stick, what the heck does "reasonably implemented", "appropriate circumstances" and "repeat infringers" mean? None of it is defined any closer. I'd go for the simple two-pronged defense:
1) The policy is clearly spelled out in our terms of service, where we may terminate your contract:
By using the Service, you agree to abide by, and require others using the Service via your account to abide by the terms of this AUP. The AUP will be updated from time to time, so you should consult this document regularly to ensure that your activities conform to the most recent version. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY STOP THE USE OF THE SERVICES AND NOTIFY THE COX CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT SO THAT YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE CLOSED.
1. Prohibited Activities. You may not use the Service in a manner that violates any applicable local, state, federal or international law, order or regulation. Additionally, you may not use the Service to:
(...)
Breach of Agreement: If You breach this Agreement, or any other agreement referenced herein, Cox has the right to terminate this Agreement and retrieve its equipment.
2) Our customers are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Something tells me this is going to get overturned on appeal.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The DMCA gives Safe Harbor to ISPs who implement the rules. If Cox never implemented the "repeat offender" policy then they are no longer entitled to the safe harbor provisions. Since the trial has not yet begun, it remains to be seen if they actually did so. We also don't know anything about the DMCA filings that Cox received.
The EFF has an article on what the DMCA repeat infringer policy means.
I'm not sure if you are in the US, but you may not understand how bad our so called justice system is. An interesting article today shows that in the last couple years, Just the Federal "Civil Forfeiture" has taken over 5 times as much money and property as crime. This is where there is no trial, no charge, not even an allegation. Police just take your stuff by simply claiming that it was connected to a crime or.. get this.. a Potential crime.
If you already knew this you know how bad things are. Since the burden of proof, allegations, and fair trials are gone what would make you believe that a Copyright claim would be different?
But you hint at something, which is a tactic not often considered "fair" but since that's gone anyway... Turn the claim on the plaintiff and start having people flood their ISPs with bogus claims of copyright infringement, trademark abuse, or hell even patent infringement. While you are probably right that it would only work against individuals as a real action, it would still start to cost money. And how about everyone going and filing small claims charges against them for damages related to an increase in their ISP billing due to frivolous lawsuits?
I'm really not sure how to oust an appointed judge either. Impeach them and the guys that appointed them?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
The DMCA allows that the ISP (if it is not the creator of the content) has a safe-harbor... which unfortunately has meant dick. See for example Viacom v. YouTube where Viacom sued Youtube and it took YEARS and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for Youtube to prevail using that "safe harbor". That's not a safe harbor.
The DMCA is a piece of crap, written by idiots trying to compromise with an MPAA/RIAA hellbent on destroying rights to protect their "intellectual" property. The safe-harbor provisions including nothing for early termination of a lawsuit (like SLAPP laws) or fee shifting to make the loser pay the winner. Instead it's all about the "IP rights".
The MPAA and the RIAA and the BSA and... (MAFIAA for short) bastardized property law and trademark law and copyright law in an attempt to get the best of all worlds in one. As a result ALL OF US lose.
Please don't make your argument about child porn. It's like bringing up Nazis and ending the discussion. if you can't make your point without "think of the children" or "the Nazis win" you didn't have one to make to begin with.
E