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."
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
But they weren't getting notices that people on the service were violating the law. They got notices saying that the *AAs believed that their customers were violating the law. There's no hard evidence that someone who the *AA sends a notice to is actually guilty of that charge unless they do a proper investigation.
Ahhh, but the DMCA has been carefully crafted to prevent that.
See, as much as they are supposed to be making a sworn statement subject to perjury, all they have to do is "ooops, we though this but we were wrong".
The DMCA was bought and paid for by the copyright cartel to ensure they can bully and bluster all they want, everyone else has to jump and say "yes sir", and they bear absolutely NO penalty or cost with being wrong, and the ISPs have to do this shit at their own expense.
What the copyright cartel did when they bought the DMCA was to ensure it was such a lop-sided law that they can misuse it all they want and nothing will ever happen to them.
The entire DMCA is defective by design. Because that's what the people who paid for it wanted it to be.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.