Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cox Stands Pat, Won't Spy On Customers To Appease Copyright Holders (hothardware.com)

Posted by yaelk on from the copyright dept.

MojoKid writes: Cox Communications is standing up for its subscribers by so far refusing to spy on their online activities and take legal action against those who download copyrighted material. That stand has already cost the ISP $25 million (the amount a Virginia federal jury recently came up with when it ruled that Cox was responsible for the activities of those using its service), and it could cost Cox even more. The ruling against Cox took place last December. Since then, music publisher BMG has followed up by asking a court to issue a permanent injunction against Cox. BMG also wants the ISP to boot customers who have pirated content and share the details of those subscribers with copyright holders. The topic of deep packet inspection has also come up. Despite all this, Cox is holding firm in its position. "To the extent the injunction requires either termination or surveillance, it imposes undue hardships on Cox, both because the order is vague and because it imposes disproportionate, intrusive, and punitive measures against households and businesses with no due process," Cox stated in its reply.

8 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Can we donate? by spiritplumber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, they should do a gofundme.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Can we donate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because that's the only leg they have to stand on. They wouldn't win on "we give a shit about our customers".

      Are you an idiot on purpose ?

    2. Re:Can we donate? by suutar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the only argument Cox has standing to make - they have to show that _they_ are being harmed; otherwise their opinion is legally irrelevant.

    3. Re:Can we donate? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This seems like a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't call it "corporate greed" when a corporation is asked to fuck over their customers, and refuses because it's going to cost them both money and customers.

      Pick your favorite for-profit company, one that no one really thinks of as "greedy", perhaps some nice local restaurant, or a doctor's office or veterinarian. Now, imagine that company is asked to spend a ton of money installing equipment spying on all their customers, blatantly violating their privacy (this is really bad in the doctor's office case, and violates HIPAA), and turning this information over to some other party so the customers can be sued for some baseless BS such as defamation or something (because the customers bashed some political candidate while chatting in the waiting room maybe, or in the exam room while waiting for the doctor).

      Is the doctor's office "greedy" because they refuse to implement this, on their own dime no less?

      Really, when any company is asked to aid and abet in fucking over their customer, how is it "not noble" when that company flatly refuses? It doesn't make them a saint, but I don't see how you can fault them for it one bit. What kind of idiot would want to fuck over his own customers? It only makes rational sense for a company to refuse.

  2. It's been said before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ISPs provide paths for information to travel on. No one goes after road builders/maintainers when someone uses a car to rob a bank. Simple as that. There is no real difference here.

    1. Re:It's been said before by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your analogy doesn't work. Deep packet inspection would be like the highway patrol being allowed to pull over every car on the road without a warrant or reasonable suspicion in order to inspect everything in the trunk on the off chance that they might find something illegal.

  3. Re:Unintended Consequences by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Cox Communications should take this case all the way to the US Supreme Court."

    Which is now no longer majority controlled by the Oil & Pharma Party, but by appointees of the Hollywood & Lawyer Party. Good luck with that.

  4. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Safe harbors are only in effect if the ISPs comply with various terms, which include terminating service for repeat offenders...based on complaints from rights holders that come without any form of due process. Understandably, Cox isn't pleased with that notion, since it means that a private third-party effectively has the ability to force Cox to drop any of its customers, merely by complaining a handful of times.

    The problem is that the ISPs don't want to be reclassified under Title II, which would protect them from these sorts of issues, but would also relegate them to being nothing more than dumb pipes. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but that means being open to being sued for not properly policing the content of their pipes.