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.
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.
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.
Wait a minute ... doesn't that mean that Cox must deal with some kind of setback?
Oh please, I've used Cox before, and they were pretty decent for an ISP. They upgraded their systems at one point, rendering my cable modem unusable, so they sent me a new Surfboard for free. Their prices were good (compared to other ISPs I've had since I had to move away from there), and the prices were stable.
The company that really, really sucks is Comcast.
I've never heard of Cox continuing to charge people after they canceled their account (Comcast is famous for this), or for making it almost impossible to do (again, Comcast is famous for this; I think I was on hold for 2 hours doing this when I had to move out of a Comcast service area).
Cox also lets you just buy a cable modem and install it yourself, without a visit from a technician. Comcast and other companies require you to have a tech visit and charge you $100 just to plug in a modem.
I also don't remember Cox having any kind of 3-strikes system like Comcast has.
I see exactly what's going on here: Cox is the best of all the cable ISPs, so they're being run out of business so Comcast can buy them up for pennies on the dollar.
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.
Whenever a Comcast truck is in the neighborhood, I know my Internet connection was FUBAR. It took me a month to convince a Comcast rep to send out a technician to check out the service box on the pole. Surprise, surprise, surprise. The last technician installed a bypass filter backwards that cut off my Internet service. Fortunately, I still had a 56k dial-up account with another ISP during those outages.
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).
Yo dawg! I heard you had a little setback...
I didn't say they were the worst. Just that I have no sympathy for them.
Cable companies have been fighting being classified as common carriers because they want to extort money out of the customers they hold under regional monopolies. If they were classified as common carriers, they would be immune. It's their own damn fault.
Cox also lets you just buy a cable modem and install it yourself, without a visit from a technician. Comcast and other companies require you to have a tech visit and charge you $100 just to plug in a modem.
Nope, not my experience. The last time I upgraded my cable modem (18 months ago?), I called Comcast tech support, plugged it in myself and was up and running in 15 to twenty minutes tops. I have never had them come out to just plug in a cable modem.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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"
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 not what happened when I began Comcast service in New Jersey; I had to pay for a tech visit.
Fine, they're going to go out of business and will be taken over by Comcast, so you'll have an even worse company to deal with.
I already have to deal with Comcast here.
I hope Cox isn't dealing with another setback.
I hope Cox isn't dealing with another setback.
Indeed. Hopefully the insurer will agree to cover Cox's legal fees and potential piracy damages.
FTFA:
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.
Cox is one of the good ones though, especially since they don't have their own attempts at being Netflix like Comcast/TW want.
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
Wait until you unplug and cancel. You'll end up with a collection on your credit report due to them continuing to bill you.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
I did that ... and the modem didn't work.
The tech came out. Said it was factory dead on arrival.
And the fuckers charged me $50 for a tech visit.
After I had picked up the modem, installed it myself, and the modem was dead because it was defective.
They charged me $50 dollars.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Cover cox. Huh huh. heh heh.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As a long-time Cox customer, I hope they win this fight, but it may take more than a court case. There has to be some reasonable limits on take-down notices. You can't just send out literally millions of notices in huge batches, and expect the ISPs to just shut up while you flood their valued customers. You can't include legal threats and settlement proposals in your notices, your notice must FIRST be a request to remove the contested content. If we don't have these simple standards of reasonableness in place, our ISPs are just going to be conduits for shakedowns.
So, thank you, Cox, for once again showing everyone what an ethical ISP that cares about its customers acts like. Stay classy.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
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.
WTF? If you think Cox is worse than Comcast, you're a fucking moron. And if you think that bitching and complaining is going to improve the state of ISPs in this country, you're also a fucking moron. You sound like a naive idealist who complains if everything isn't up to some lofty, unrealistic standard. Maybe after you get past the age of 18 you'll see the real world isn't like that.
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.
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