Slashdot Mirror
Insurer Refuses To Cover Cox In Massive Piracy Lawsuit (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes with news that Cox Communications' insurer, Lloyds Of London underwriter Beazley, is refusing to cover legal costs and any liabilities from the case brought against it by BMG and Round Hill Music. TorrentFreak reports: "Trouble continues for one of the largest Internet providers in the United States, with a Lloyds underwriter now suing Cox Communications over an insurance dispute. The insurer is refusing to cover legal fees and potential piracy damages in Cox's case against BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music. Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback. Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback."
Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback. Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback. Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback. Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback. Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback.
Here's one more time, in case you missed it:
Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
I hope Cox isn't dealing with another setback.
I hope Cox isn't dealing with another setback.
Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback.
Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback.
Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback.
Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead.
Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead.
Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer company...
This article has been brought to you by the Dept. of Redundancy Department as as article.
I'm strongly opposed to the sort of breach of contract on the insurance company's part. However, I do take some satisfaction in seeing Cox get the cock that they so liberally give everyone else.
Thank you slashot editors for the great work you're doing! Thank you slashot editors for the great work you're doing!
His remarks seem more like he had a predestined ruling.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is stupid. Why would the DMCA apply to an ISP? If we are now going to those lengths, what of the copper company that make the cables?
That's a lot of setbacks.
So what's happening here?
You know if ISPs are responsible for what the users download, all freedom under law is lost.
Think about that while you are trying to figure out what companies you "like" and what companies you "don't like".
Wait a minute ... doesn't that mean that Cox must deal with some kind of setback?
Suing clients just because a client's court case happens to go the wrong way? I hope the insurance company crashes and burns.
Well, to be fair. It's not the notices Cox is concerned with...
"in a statement that leaves little to the imagination, Cox notes that Rightscorp is “threatening” subscribers with “extortionate” letters.
Rightscorp is in the business of threatening Internet users on behalf of copyright owners. Rightscorp specifically threatens subscribers of ISPs with loss of their Internet service — a punishment that is not within Rightscorp’s control — unless the subscribers pay a settlement demand, Cox writes (pdf).
Cox has refused to participate in Rightscorp's quasi-legal activities. While the company is not opposed to passing on infringement allegations, it did ask Rightscorp to remove the threatening language (cutting off service, $150,000 per infringement claim) first. Rightscorp refused to do so."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150525/12523631096/cox-claims-rightscorps-extortionate-lawsuit-really-backdoor-way-to-get-subscribers-info.shtml
In spite of some feelings, COX will have to defend itself against the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Automakers aren't responsible for car accidents. Phone makers aren't responsible for texting-instead-of-driving. ISP's provide data pipes for a fee. Fertilizer companies aren't responsible for the bombs nutters make, nor are the fuel companies for making gasoline or diesel. Its not so much that COX deserves to live or die, its just that the precedent of over-reach. If COX dies because of this, or is burdened, then half a heartbeat later, will be under the same burden. Likewise, you will be under a burden because they won't stop at attacking your ISP. Over reach is part of their plan. Linking to a site that links to a site that provides a hint at content that they suspect is theirs will "provide clear evidence" that you are stealing from them. It depends on exactly how much money you have (all in, total assets). That's just about how much they will try to sue you for. Its not really about damages, its really about revenue. The lawyers are supposed to add to the balance sheet. There is an expectation. The law, fair use and consumer rights are not part of their plan (clearly). So go ahead and watch COX suffer if you want to, but remember that COX is merely a president for them.
Insurance companies are in the business of paying for as little as possible. There are legitimate questions about whether something is covered and then there is the massive fraud they engage in as a regular part of their business model.
The question will be whether the coverage extends to cover Cox if they are found guilty of violating the DMCA. If the claim even *might* be something they have to cover, then they probably have to defend it. (The duty to defend is generally broader than the duty to pay for the loss).
Here's a solution... Get the word out to all Cox customers (or anyone else) that gets hit for extortion from Wrongscorp to demand a court hearing. Chance are the case will be dropped, or if it does go to court demand proof the the infringing IP address is actually your computer. I always forget to turn off my guest wireless, which is open, no wep or wpa.
Yo dawg! I heard you had a little setback...
But I'm actually pulling for a cable company to win.
Yes the user is paying for internet services, why or how can that account just be removed?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Shit editors need to be fired, but also, shit editors need to be fired and usually shit editors need to be fired and you know what else? Shit editors need to be fired.
Why would it be surprising at all that an Insurer is going to try to get out from under any potential costs it may have to pay, an Insurance company simply does NOT want to pay out any claims at all. The basis under which the Insurance company is trying to get out from under this is as specious as BMG's lawsuit. What this pretty much guarantees is that Cox will continue to fight to get the ruling overturned...they could try to settle I guess but the potential dollar amounts of 100's of millions is pretty much guaranteed to ensure Cox will NOT settle...this is good as it might actually mean that the DMCA is finally challenged up to the Supreme Court...and perhaps sanity will prevail.
That's what happens when you don't cover your Cox.
Ooh! Do Comcast next! Kill Comcast with fire!!!
FTFA:
Took me a while to realize I wasn't just accidentally re-reading the same sentence over and over.
If Big Media wants to play this game, then subpoena their financial records, executive email, and contracts. Make this all part of an unsealed court document. Big Media will shit their pants if any of that came out. The artists that they are screwing will come down on them like 10000 elephants and hippos.
Lloyds hasn't been paying attention to sex ed. They should know by now you're supposed to cover your Cox before you fuck people.
I do not have a dog in this fight, I hate them both equally. All legal battles and all insurance policies (same thing) have terms. Terms are restrictive. Example: My auto policy does not cover off-road and/or racing settings. If I take my car to a perfectly legal drag strip and (anyone) wrecks it, I am on my own. I have never seen a policy that indemnifies losses incurred while committing a crime. Better/more applicable example: If you are a fleeing felon, wreck your car and are injured, you are on your own; no Auto, no medical, no life, no disability, etc. I am not judging the case on its merits; but if Cox incurred a loss while in violation if the law, they are - defacto - uninsured.
Isn't it that kind of stuff you insure yourself against? WTF is it with insurance companies, they refuse the insurance claim as soon as you actually need it? I hope they get all their money back and every ISP in the US look for a new insurance company or create their own because they are going to need it.
The Slashdot headline missed a key detail covered in the article:
Beazley point out that the piracy lawsuit was filed November last year, several days before the December 1, 2014 date the insurance policy began.
It is a bit difficult to file an insurance claim against lawsuit costs when the lawsuit was instigated before the insurance took effect.
Since we love automobile analogies so much: It is like buying car insurance in December to insure against a crash that took place the month before. That's not going to help much.
Or buying a life insurance policy for your recently-deceased relative.
The date insurance coverage began is going to be a far bigger problem than details of what the policy covers.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Following a ruling from a Virginia federal court that Cox is not protected by the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, the Internet provider must now deal with another setback.
It was so important they had to say it twice!
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Department of the Redundancy Department?
Your contact list or lead list is the key to the longevity of your business, and your buy email list building techniques will be a crucial part of your success.
Cover cox. Huh huh. heh heh.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
ISPs have T&C that allow them to do anything.
that might make it worse, because it's CHANGE and change is SCARY. Don't fight, you're getting the "best deal" so live with it.
That's exactly how this situation got here in the first place, morn.
And what's with this "Don't hold your supplier to any standard, they're better than a worse company!"? Don't whine about totalitarian police or state because it isn't as bad as North Korea!
Because the copyright cartel have bought laws from lawmakers which effectively give them the ability to decide who can use technology and how.
The DHS is now responsible for copyright enforcement, and the US foreign policy on copyright is now being directed by corporate interests.
All of these things have combined to mean that the accusations of corporations are being interpreted (by them, and by the idiot judge in this case) as meaning that they get to decide if a person should be removed from the internet due to being suspected of piracy.
Have you not been paying attention at all? Between the DMCA, the horrible extension of copyright, and the increasing extent to which protecting the profits of multinational corporations has driven US foreign policy ... it's not the media corporations who make such decisions.
Oh, and did we mention they do this with a reduced standard of evidence, no requirement of proof, and little or no recourse for lying? (They can just call it incompetence and suddenly there is no penalty.)
What the copyright people want is a full veto over how all technology is used, and the ability to deny people the ability to use the internet because they say so.
The person paying for the internet service? He has no rights. He has the right to use the internet as long as the media companies haven't accused him of piracy ... in which case, the media companies feel that accusation is sufficient to block further access.
You now live in a world in which probably 25% of all global treaty talks are specifically geared to entrenching into law that copyright owners have increasing powers.
The US has sold out to corporate interests, and then have subsequently championed them globally and foisted them on everyone else, and then used that to strengthen domestic controls.
Honestly, have you slept through all this?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This story reminds me of the New York Times back in the Linotype days.
HOW MANY TIMES have I told all you FILESHARING IDIOTS that your days are numbered and you risk civil and criminal suit against you.
You, Mister Anonymous Coward, have told me MANY things MANY times! You've told me that we are all cows, you've told me I should use your APK hosts file. None of it makes sense. Just stop making a fool of yourself!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
That's an awful lot of setbacks right there
How much do you think Cox has been paying their insurer? How long has Cox been paying their insurer?
Now when they need it, the insurer gives them the big middle finger.
Just goes to show what a scam insurance is. You pay, and pay, and pay, and pay, all for nothing.
Cox would have been better off keeping the money they paid for insurance. At lest then they would have gotten some use from it.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Yes, but were passersby amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood?