Slashdot Mirror
Cox Is Liable For Pirating Subscribers, Ordered To Pay $25 Million (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A federal jury reached a verdict that Cox Communications must pay $25 million to BMG Rights Management for failing to disconnect subscribers accused of online piracy. TorrentFreak reports: "During the trial hearings BMG revealed that the tracking company Rightscorp downloaded more than 150,000 copies of their copyrighted works directly from Cox subscribers. It also became apparent that Cox had received numerous copyright infringement warnings from Rightscorp which it willingly decided not to act on.The case was restricted to 1,397 copyrighted works and a six-person jury awarded $25 million in damages. The award is lower than the statutory maximum, which would have been over $200 million."
Does Cox have the Balls to just block all traffic to BMG label sites and any other commercial entities with a presence on the net that are even loosely related to BMG? Because that'd be my first move.
So these subscribers were suspect, and Cox didn't kill their connections after a private organisation told them to, so they're on the hook for the suspected cases?
The whole situation seems suspect in of itself.
FCC just made them common carriers, but now court says they're responsible for what goes over their network? Can't have it both ways...
So these subscribers were suspect, and Cox didn't kill their connections after a private organisation told them to, so they're on the hook for the suspected cases?
The whole situation seems suspect in of itself.
No.
The jury held that BMG had *proved* the users violated copyright. (By a preponderance of the evidence, because it is a civil case--you don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.)
The jury also held that Cox had contributed the infringement, probably by "materially contributing" to the infringement. I didn't see the jury instructions so I'm not sure offhand. It's probably a bad extension of the Grokster case that should get overturned on appeal, although it might or might not. If it isn't, it turns out that Congress gets a LOT of money from communications providers, and they may well change the law.
At $166.66 per download, it looks like suing has a better profit margin than actually selling the DVD!
If the Electric Power company is told by unofficial third parties (BMG et al) that their electricity is being used to power Cox Equipment on both the user and carrier side that is being used to download copyrighted materials, is the Electric Company also just as liable to tens of millions in damages for clearly supplying power to both the alleged perp and to the Cox internet connection utility?? It is the Same insane Logic! This is essentially a case of the gun maker being held responsible versus the person holding it and using the gun... This case will be overturned on appeal.
We actually passed laws that prevent the big label from suing the ISPs or the people, for more than a "very small" amount, which wouldn't even be worth going to court for.
Because lets face it... You didn't lose MILLIONS of dollars just because this one dude downloaded your $1 song.
The articles didn't say where this case was tried. East Texas? If so, the final appeal may change things.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Rightscorp committed the copyright infringement NOT Cox users...it was Rightscorp that downloaded & made the illegal copies where's the evidence that Cox's customers actually copied anything rather than making the files available? If BMG doesn't sue Rightscorp Cox should do it as the evidence in this case makes it clear that Rightscorp is the infringer & as such they need to pay the judgement in this suit.
Appeal, on the grounds this is bullsh1t yo! Yes I know that's not legal term, I just feel like venting and noting there will be an appeal and hopefully sane head actually prevail.
The massive problem here is the judicial ruling that a third, non-government party can tell an ISP to disconnect a user simply based on suspicion of copyright violations and the ISP must comply. I have never seen anything like this, where someone who suspects wrongdoing is allowed to set a punishment outside of the judicial system.
... for failing to disconnect subscribers accused of online piracy.
Yes, because "accused" means "guilty" to the likes of BMG and Rightscorp and, apparently, the courts support this sort of no-due-process process.
Why oh why can't ISIS go after BMG and Rightscorp and do *everyone* a favor? [ Heh, Just kidding NSA - it was a joke ... really, I swear. ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I know this is meant to be rhetorical/alarmist, but the answer is no.
The DMCA - specifically, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - deals with communications, not power. There is nothing on the books about electric companies being responsible for infringement.
The bottom line is this shit needs to be nuked from orbit. The DMCA blatantly violates rights of ownership and the solution is for the dumb fucks in congress to make internet access a basic human right (like water and electricity) that cannot be shut off for shits and giggles, only extended non payment or felony criminal activity. Period. Beyond that, the fines (thats right, fines, money that goes to the government, not BMG or anyone else) should be limited to the the dollar value of the content shared plus $250 on conviction, which the court could reduce on proof of financial hardship.
This is akin to a speeding ticket, not corporate espionage. Sharing content online should never inflict bankruptcy on a family. If there is a DMCA violation, it should be investigated by law enforcement and criminal charges brought. It may be shocking to the music "rights" industry that police have more important things to do than investigate theoretical loss of income... but that is tough shit for them.
90% of consumers would also be very pleased to repeal the DMCA, but the Democrats, who had the house, senate and WH didn't do it in 2008-10, and the Republicans certainly won't do it, so we're fucked. The real solution to a lot of the stupid shit in Washington right now is to push your representatives to sign a pledge to create a constitutional amendment that sets up a referendum process for the people to vote directly on new laws and amendments. We could easily fix the patent office, copyright and eliminate the DMCA and set up a fair balance between consumer rights and content creators. Right now it is just a cluster fuck and it isn't going to change with either party in power.
it's time to cull all the retards responsible for things like this
This is a great time to be in business as a vpn provider. I think more and more people will be using them as more of this crap goes on.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So every article I find on this is garbage. I'm reading the ruling on summary judgement from Dec 1st.
Here's my conclusion from reading the ruling:
1) Cox had an official policy to not actually terminate repeat offenders because they didn't want to lose customers.
- This means they weren't in compliance with the DMCA. I gotta agree with the court on that one.
- Side note: If someone is pirating that much, and Cox was still profiting, then why do they need to institute bandwidth caps?
2) The Supreme Court Grokster decision was the scariest blow here.
- The court says Grokster didn't limit liability to companies actually inducing or profiting from copyright violations.
- That completely changes my understanding of Grokster!
- The court says Cox is contributarily liable because they materially contributed to the copyright infringement.
That "materially contributed" thing is frightening. This is what we've all been afraid of because it seems to open-up the possibility that the maker of the modem is liable, and the company who installed the wires is liable, or the maker of the downloading software, etc. Lots of people materially contributed. We need to really limit this definition of "material contribution."
Here's my notes:
Cox limits DMCA complaint emails to 200/day from any given copyright holder.
Cox doesn't do anything with the notices until they receive 8 of them for a single user within 6 months. Termination happens at like 15+ within 6 months.
"Termination" just means the user has to call Cox and apologize, and the counter is reset.
Rightscorp auto-generates DMCA emails.
Rightscorp was sending emails with settlement notices in them.
Cox says those notices aren't within the spirit of the DMCA, so they auto-delete them.
Rightscorp responded by sending 24,000/day
Cox just outright blocked Rightscorp's emails.
The judge cited the Grokster case as the reason that ISPs can be liable for user's copyright actions. They basically rehashed the whole Grokster case, the whole "making available" theory, and all that jazz.
The DMCA says ISPs must implement a "reasonable" repeat infringer policy. The law left this *completely* open. The only way anyone figures out what it means is when they get sued for not doing a "reasonable" job. The courts then clarify the law a bit more each time. Ugh!
The courts say that ISPs are not required to actively monitor for infringement.
Rightscorp made various complaints about Cox's policy.
The court decided that Cox's account termination was too lenient.
The court didn't even really care that Cox blocked Rightscorp's emails.
Cox didn't have a repeat infringer policy before 2012. And Cox derided the intentionally circumvented the process anyway.
Cox higher-ups sent an email that basically told the abuse department not to terminate anyway, because they can't afford to lose customers.
Cox complained that BMG didn't hold copyright to lots of this stuff. Court says: Yes they did, and it doesn't matter anyway.
Cox says: this whole DMCA complaint process is a farce. Judge says: Yeah, but you knew some were real and still ignored those.
The court disregards Cox's arguments that Rightscorp are extortionists as irrelevant since they weren't extorting Cox. Sounds like the end-users might have had an argument there, but Cox doesn't.
Clearly rightscorp is downloading enough music every day to justify cutting off their service.
And just as clearly Rightscorp has a contract with the copyright holder authorizing that action. Do you want to get people's service cut off for legal downloading of content?
Thomas Hesse, Sony BMG's Global Digital Business President, told reporter Neda Ulaby,
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is an important point that requires interpretation. The question is, "are complaints which Rightscorp buried in a ton pf BS emails proper complaints under the DMCA?"
The most relevant law is the DMCA, which sets out procedures that should be followed in these instances. Unfortunately, most private individuals and many small businesses don't know how the procedure works. That's unfortunate because when everyone involved knows what they are supposed to do under DMCA, it generally works better than what happened before the DMCA. Here's the procedure :
The copyright owner files a complaint which includes certain specific facts.
The ISP forwards the complaint to the accused.
If the accused doesn't respond immediately the ISP takes temporary action based on the complaint (the accused hasn't denied the complaint) .
The accused may file a counter-claim with the ISP and have the action reversed.
The complainant (copyright holder) may then file suit in federal court.
The process is far from perfect, but one good thing is that the ISP isn't put into the role of judge. The ISP never decides who is right or wrong, if you say you're not infringing, they basically take you at your word. (And if the accused doesn't deny it, they have to aft as if the complaint is true.) The ISP only has to follow the process laid out in the law, and they can't be held liable. If they choose NOT to follow the DMCA process, they can be liable to either the copyright owner or the accused.
So that's the law. Rightscorp did file complaints. Therefore, by a strict reading of the law, the ISP must take appropriate action unless the other party denies the claim.
HOWEVER, Rightscorp sent a shit-ton of very questionable emails to the ISP, many of which did not meet the requirements to be a proper complaint under DMCA. The ISP's argument is as follows:
Rightscorp flooded us with bullshit emails.
Because Rightscorp did so, the ISP couldn't reasonably read them all and determine which ones were actual DMCA complaints containing the required details.
Because Rightscorp made it so difficult to dig through and find the properly formed complaints, the court should not require the ISP to respond to them.
Instead, the court should act as if Rightscorp never sent those complaints.
The ISP's reasoning is to some extent logical and fair. Rightscorp made it nearly impossible to respond to them all, then complained to the court about the results of their own actions.
On the other hand, Rightscorp did send some proper complaints, and Cox ignored those complaints. That makes Cox liable* if you just read the law while ignoring the BS that Rightscorp pulled.
So the legitimate question that does require judgement, interpretation, is this:
Is a complaint which the complainant buried in a ton of BS a proper complaint which must be responded to under DMCA?
That's not clearly specified in the law. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide.
* Apart from the issue above, Cox also asserts that Rightscorp is misreading the law. The law seems to have somewhat different requirements for ISPs which only -carry- the data temporarily through their network vs those which provide web hosting or similar services involving storage of the material. The language of the law isn't entirely crystal clear on which requirements apply to which type of service. Cox asserts that Rightscorp is trying to apply the requirements of ISPs who -host- web sites to them, while they only -carry- the traffic. It's not crystal clear - Cox may very well be right. Because the wording and structure of the law isn't crystal clear, a court must interpret the ambiguous structure to determine what it's supposed to mean.
Ahh, but that is where you are wrong.
Communications "IS" power. It's electricity in use.
Electricity, its flow is communications (the 60hz sine wave is a carrier wave).
So yes, they do "communicate" and they are involved in this.
You wouldn't download a subscriber....
IMHO, it's really about a dying industry attempting to extract all of the liquidity from a market before it takes its last breath. Or if its anything like the BSA, its about a company that is "hired" as an enforcer that gets to keep anything it kills.
Riddle me this, if Rightscorp is setup like the BSA, then it may keep 100% of any claims it is able to prosecute. In the case of the BSA, they were initially funded by a consortium of software houses. But their business model is now funded 100% by their ability to prosecute incorrect licensing. The BSA is not required to turn over any of it's winnings to the partners. That means that if you installed Adobe Acrobat too many times, the BSA profits but Adobe does not.
Is Rightscorp setup the same way? A tool of the music industry that can hound it's own income with out paying those who stand to loose?
You and the four idiots who moderated you up should take a break from the internet and learn things. I can't even start tocorrect you, and thank goodness someone else tried. Please read that reply, and consider how wrong your idealistic and ignorant reply might be, before posting anywhere in the future.
Trying to help, tough love and all that.
"for failing to disconnect subscribers accused of online piracy." So what happened to the whole innocent until proven guilty and all that? Why do they expect to be able to take action against people based on accusations?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Really bad and flawed analogy. It would be more like it was discovered that some of the power company's customers were discovered to be using electricity to commit crimes, were told to disconnect those specific customers according to law, and it failed to do so. This is about vendor negligence not specifically copyright laws.
The real precedent is that everyone must protect Hollywood's profits. Of course no-one wants to spend their money making someone else rich, so Cox must find some way of shifting the costs: It can't directly. It can indirectly though, by spending all its profit amplifying this rent-seeking behaviour but that's an expense no shareholder wants to bear, he wants his 4% growth per quarter. When the alternative is a fine which is also borne by the shareholder, the smart answer may be to break the system by implementing it perfectly.
Instead Cox declared the system faulty and chose to ignore the associated problem. What's the point of giving your enemy the tools to harass you. Okay, that wasn't the real point of automated infringement controls, but that's what happened. Why didn't Cox deal with that instead of saying "you're arseholes, go away"? I doubt the law says such companies must provide automated tools so that's a weakness that should be used to control the bullies.
Personally, I'd contract a run-down town in India to handle it. One of their duties will be to collect registered international envelopes since that will be the only way for Hollywood to reach the infringement control department. Anything not in a registered envelope must be shredded, that's in their contracts. Anything Hollywood sends directly to US head office will be returned to sender, or delivery not signed. Since there's a limit to standard envelope sizes, it will greatly increase Hollywood's costs and the post office's profits. The registered envelope must also include a SSAE, half-page size, so the contractors in India can confirm the registered envelope was received. The contractors in India then use a digital scanner on the documents and Parcel post the resulting DVDs to US head office every Friday.
That's already happening: the ones letting RC have a copy they legitimately have right to are being sued for letting them have it.
RC are making the copy. they have the right to make the copy (you claim) and then they want to sue someone else for the legal copy they made?
If the law is ambiguous, it is a bad law and should be tossed out.
This really is a shame as of them all, Cox is by far the most level-headed and hands-off national ISP. I am still thankful I have them instead of the harrowing nightmares that are Time-Warner, Comcast, et al.
Adobe will profit when the BSA 'victim' buys a licence and BSA profit from any fines/fees paid by their victim.
In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
dying industry?
really?
they're making more money than ever.
Rightscorp does a 50/50 split with their clients. They've often been accused of being overzealous in their attempts to collect. On the other hand, they ask for a settlement of $10-$20, which is quite reasonable if the person was in fact unlawfully copying the work.
IMHO, this is like blaming the Port Authority when bank robbers use one of their bridges for their getaway route.
So the legitimate question that does require judgement, interpretation, is this: Is a complaint which the complainant buried in a ton of BS a proper complaint which must be responded to under DMCA?
That's not clearly specified in the law. Therefore, it is up to the court to decide.
True. But Cox had a pretty damn good argument that burying them under a clearly frivolous and unduly burdensome blizzard of paper (emails), rather than clearly denoting the communications that were "legitimate" DMCA Complaints was clearly a tactic aimed not at stopping infringement, but rather to trick them into doing exactly what they did: Essentially ignoring ALL of RightsCorp's emails.
Personally, I would have filed a Counterclaim against Rightscorp for abusing the spirit of the DMCA's Notice Requirement, for the damages incurred by Cox in handling Rightscorp's NON-DMCA-Notice communications.
Afterall, it's not like Cox can handle all those FAKE-Notices for free.
Here's the biggest offender! BMG should be suing this company, which is blatantly and egregiously violating their copyright!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
He was making a strawman argument.
If the ISPs, which merely transmit requested data to and fro, without the time and tools to sort through every bit of information transferred between customer and world, can be liable for what one of their customers downloads, then it stands to reason that another bad law can be written that takes it one step further (say... targeting Ethernet card manufacturers). Then later, a step further than that (targeting the powergrid).
Another strawman argument to make, of course, would be "If ISPs are liable for whatever the internet sends a customer's computer, then Comcast should have to pay damages for every virus downloaded by Comcast customers"
"You and the four idiots who moderated you up should take a break from the internet and learn thing"
Speak for yourself, oh ye who fails to understand a comparative (and actually accurate) statement.
Teleommunications IS electricity, you dim-witted fuckwit high school dropout and tech-illiterate 7-digit scumbag. All it is, is routed power signals.
On the other hand, they ask for a settlement of $10-$20
If that settlement offer is open to all, then let's everybody pirate movies and TV shows that were released decades ago but never made available on DVD, such as Song of the South, Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night, and Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea.
Say an agent for a copyright owner sends you a thousand messages, three of which are valid DMCA notices and nine hundred ninety-seven of which are messages that look like DMCA notices but are not in fact valid. What's the efficient method to distinguish the valid DMCA notices from the spam?
Rightshaven and BMG are forcing an ISP to pass unsolicited email. What are they going to do when I report both to the FTC and the FCC for violations of the Can-Spam Act? How fast will that 25 million evaporate?
That's already happening: the ones letting RC have a copy they legitimately have right to are being sued for letting them have it.
That's right. Because having a legitimate copy of something does not mean you have a right to produce copies for other people.
RC are making the copy. they have the right to make the copy (you claim)
Yes, they have the right granted by the copyright holder. The person making the copy and distributing it does not.
and then they want to sue someone else for the legal copy they made?
Except the copy someone else made wasn't legal.
All the ISPs lobbied HARD to get themselves reclassified away from Common Carrier status. They WERE common carrier, and that made them immune to this... I hope this is the tip of an AWESOME iceberg in suing the ISPs. Don't be merciful, they ASKED for this.
If this takes off, and why wouldn't it, it's basically free money for Rights Holders, the carriers will be begging to be reclassified as common carriers... As they SHOULD be.
Sue on! Hey, I've put my copyrighted works on the internet. I bet some of you has looked at my works without permission. I bet Comcast enabled that! They owe me money too! :D
None of this would have been possible if they hadn't lobbied themselves out of common carrier. They've been arguing against common carrier for over a decade now. Time to reap what you have sown....
Cox should have called... http://www.computerlegalexpert...