Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cox Is Liable For Pirating Subscribers, Ordered To Pay $25 Million (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

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."

11 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Your move, Cox by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Your move, Cox by drunk_punk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Really? I would think they would use this as the EXACT excuse! "Due to our ongoing lawsuit with BMG we are not forwarding any traffic that may be used against us in a court of law, i.e. any proprietary information that BMG may have rights to."

    2. Re:Your move, Cox by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Would it? I mean, if they're supposed to be the content police and they're being punished for not upholding that, then don't they get a say in what they will or will not let pass through their pipes?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re: Your move, Cox by billcopc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Net neutrality does not come into play if they word it as a "network security" tactic. If I start spamming from my IP address, my upstream provider might null me until the problem is addressed. Why can't Cox null traffic to/from known copyright trolls who are spying on their users and presumably making an unusually large and suspicious number of connections (for evidence) ?

      It would be like that old "PeerBlock", but at a network level. Hardly any different than checking mail relays against blacklists

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  2. Better profit for them than buying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At $166.66 per download, it looks like suing has a better profit margin than actually selling the DVD!

  3. Canada is great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  4. Bad Precedent by timrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Bad Precedent by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wait until TPP comes into effect. Someone could get a copyright infringement ruling in one country for content hosted in another country in which it doesn't violate copyright and still have the content provider take down the material.

  5. Accused? Off with their heads! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... 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. . . .
  6. DMCA, possibly the most unconstitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Rightscorp caused a need for interpretation of by Matt.Battey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?