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

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.

Comments

Can we donate?

[spiritplumber]

Seriously, they should do a gofundme.

Re:Can we donate?

[meta-monkey]

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.

Re:Can we donate?

[suutar]

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.

Re:Can we donate?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Unintended Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Unintended Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Comcast in DC

[Anonymous Coward]

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.