Slashdot Mirror


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.

3 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.
  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?