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.
His remarks seem more like he had a predestined ruling.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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.
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
I would like BMG to sue the atmosphere, because just yesterday I heard pirated music being played on somebody's stereo. Let's drag that piracy-helping fucker Yahweh into court!!!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
The assertion (by BMG/RHM) is that Cox has not fulfilled the requirements for safe harbor, which include terminating the accounts of repeat offenders. Cox has replied that it takes action on every report of infringement and that in some cases they do wind up terminating access, but BMG/RHM are saying that's not good enough, and a Federal judge has ruled (as I understand it) that the assertion can go to trial, rather than being summarily dismissed as Cox requested.
Which I suspect means that this trial may wind up clarifying exactly what criteria define "repeat offender" for the purposes of the DMCA. Or, more likely, Cox will settle and then get really strict to avoid having to deal with this again.
The assertion (by BMG/RHM) is that Cox has not fulfilled the requirements for safe harbor, which include terminating the accounts of repeat offenders.
Alledged repeat offenders.
How many times a year do we read about big media companies using automated systems that fire off buttloads of false DMCA takedowns?
BMG are not (and should never be) judge,jury and executioner.
The assertion (by BMG/RHM) is that Cox has not fulfilled the requirements for safe harbor, which include terminating the accounts of repeat offenders.
Alledged repeat offenders.
How many times a year do we read about big media companies using automated systems that fire off buttloads of false DMCA takedowns?
BMG are not (and should never be) judge,jury and executioner.
FWIW, the previous story made it clear that Cox has called them out on exactly that grounds, as well as a bunch of other claims/country-claims.
One of their main claims is that BMG had spammed them with way too many notices that had lacked proper evidence and such. Cox had notified BMG of that a bunch of times and tried to work with them, and they would not stop sending the automated and often unjustified notices, so Cox stopped listening to any of their reports.
IMO, that's the real story, and makes both sides make more sense. This has almost nothing to do with the end user. Neither Cox nor BMG want to take the time to do the proper paperwork and research to determine if these red flags are detecting actual cases of infringement. BMG is automatically spamming all possible claims; Cox is automatically sending them all to /dev/null; Neither of those are very helpful.
This will likely be settled out of court with some agreement that either BMG will do a little more work, or they'll pay Cox to do it, and then Cox will accept the vast majority of the claims. I'd almost be willing to wager money on that one, if I cared enough to follow this further.
Previous slashdot story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Cox's response: http://ia801407.us.archive.org...
Their response is actually kinda fun to read.
FTFA:
BMG is automatically spamming all possible claims; Cox is automatically sending them all to /dev/null; Neither of those are very helpful.
The problem as I understand it is the "settlement offers" (a/k/a copyright trolling a/k/a extortion racket) that are included in the "notices".
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
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
Department of the Redundancy Department?
Cover cox. Huh huh. heh heh.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Previous slashdot story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Cox's response: http://ia801407.us.archive.org...
Their response is actually kinda fun to read.
It's even more fun if you mentally replace the redacted sections with uninterrupted cussing! Some of the sections are quite long, so get creative! ;-)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
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.