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.

23 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 meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a Cox customer, this makes me happy to give them my subscription dollars.

      I don't think that's a phrase I ever thought I'd say: "I'm happy to give a telecom my money."

      Still, I always use a VPN anyway.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. 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 ?

    3. 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.

    4. 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. Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The federal court ruling sets a dangerous precedent. Now if an ISP fails to stop the distribution of illegal materials such as (think of the children) pornography either served to a minor or of an exploited minor, the ISP can be sued by the parents of said children. Cox Communications should take this case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    1. Re: Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm guessing this is a lot of MPAA doing judge shopping. Cox's hq is Atlanta, so why is this lawsuit in VA with the one judge who is exvesssively in the pockets of the mpaa?

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Unintended Consequences by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      One of the reasons I'm very sorry to see Scalia go. He would laugh this crap right out of the courtroom.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Unintended Consequences by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      "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.

      That's a pity. An Oil & Pharma Party sounds like more fun than the other one...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. 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.

  3. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ahh but the government does provide cops to sit on that highway and patrol it, and CCTV cameras to monitor it. So perhaps, running with your analogy, eventually the government itself will decide that it has every right to perform deep packet inspection on every and any ISP and ISPs will be forced to comply. In a way this is how it should be - because it's not up to a private company to enforce laws on behalf of the government. On the other hand, if the government is not already doing this it would give them a reason (as if they needed one) to do it.

    2. Re:It's been said before by pr0t0 · · Score: 2

      It is different, but only because the DMCA says so.

      Title II states the ISP's cannot be held liable for a wide range of copyright infringement happening by their customers if the ISP meets certain criteria. Among that criteria is the ISP has to provide a person who can be notified when infringing material is found, and respond expeditiously to stop the flow of that content, or remove it in the case of temporary storage within the network.

      I think where it gets tricky is the ISP has to respond if they have or gain knowledge about the infringing material. BMG is stating Cox has the tools to gain that knowledge and should be forced to use them. The DMCA does not state the ISP must use every tool necessary to root out such material though. I don't see how the Virginia court could interpret Title II to include actively looking for copyrighted material. Unless the argument is that Cox is already using such tools and turning a blind eye to the infringement they see. In that event, they would be in violation of Title II.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    3. 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.

  4. And they're a cable company? by sabbede · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't they be too busy doing wrong to get around to doing what's right?

    1. Re:And they're a cable company? by DivineKnight · · Score: 3

      Perhaps they've reviewed the legal ramifications of losing common carrier status, and have decided, from a fiscal standpoint, that it's their morally corporate duty to maintain such status for as long as reasonably possible.

  5. Who do I root for? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

    I don't know who to root for. Cox, like most cable companies, is evil incarnate but here they are doing good against an arguably "more evil" megacorp. I'm in a quandary.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    1. Re:Who do I root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's how Obama got elected again in 2012 after his horrible first term....

    2. Re:Who do I root for? by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      What horribly things has COX done exactly? They have been my provider in a number of cases and as far as I can tell all they ever did was offer reasonable quality service (industry leading by some measures) at competitive prices.

      In my personal experience their customer service was never nearly as painful as the other cable companies I have had the misfortune of dealing with. Cox never forced upgrades the way COMCRAP does, and let me continue using my old modem rather than renting one from them, etc.

      As much as its possible to 'like' a cable company, I like COX.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  6. Comcast in DC by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    I have noticed that Comcast in the DC area has done the opposite: they are now doing DPI to detect BitTorrent downloads of copyrighted materials and using HTML/ HTTP injections to serve notices.

    1. Re:Comcast in DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cox customer... I had to set Transmission (my bittorrent app) to use a random port a few months ago because Cox blocked the default port.

  7. Remeber the last CEO who didn't spy on customers? by MrLint · · Score: 2

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/fea...