Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cox Denies Liability for Pirating Subscribers, Appeals $25 Million Verdict (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the uncertain-path dept.

Cox Communications insists that it is not responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its subscribers, challenging the ruling by a Virginia federal jury late last year. The court had found Cox Communications guilty and had asked it to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management a sum of $25 in damages. TorrentFreak reports: The verdict was a massive victory for the music company and a disaster for Cox, but the case is not closed yet. After a failed motion for judgment as a matter of law earlier this month, the ISP has now informed the court that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Cox denies any wrongdoing and hopes to get a judgment in its favor at the appeals court. Considering the gravity of the case, Cox's move is not surprising. The liability verdict has come as a shock to the Internet provider industry, as it suggests that providers have to actively disconnect repeat infringers. At the moment, many ISPs don't have a solid policy in place where repeat copyright infringers lose their subscription. In fact, the law doesn't prescribe when and based on what evidence an ISP has to terminate an account.

97 comments

  1. WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quick, someone tell me who to root for, I'm so confused.

    1. Re:WAIT by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cox is generally the least shitty of the US cable ISPs. Admittedly, this is a terribly low bar, but most surveys have rated them somewhere around "adequate" which puts them light years ahead of Comcast/etc.

      Also, as Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

    2. Re:WAIT by macsimcon · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This just isn’t true.

      Cox charges more money for lower speeds than Time Warner, Verizon (Frontier), Comcast, AT&T, etc.

      And they have the weakest channel/cable subscription offerings of of any of the monopolies. If there’s a new feature or technology being offered by the cable industry, you can bet that Cox customers will get it years after everyone else in the country has it.

      In short, Cocks Communications is aptly named.

    3. Re:WAIT by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      This depends on where in the country you have Cox service. I pay $100 ($85 + tax) a month for 200/20 with a 2T cap and 150G cloud storage. I normally get 240 to 280 down. I get great service.

    4. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if Cox is a shitty ISP, manhandling whoever is in arm's reach when the culprit isn't? Is something I'd expect from a primitive savage.

      Except that savage doesn't have the extra layer of scum required to throw in a fallacious blame game. Join us next week when we lock up teachers for failing to stop shooters.

    5. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do pay Cox a bit more than relatives who have Comcast and Time-Warner, but I think I get much better service than they do. All I hear from them is horror stories, but in 20+ years I've had zero problems other than a corroded connection out by the street that they fixed on the first try.

    6. Re:WAIT by cavreader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are missing the point. This ruling against Cox can now be used to hit every other provider of ISP providers. Doesn't matter if the provider is good or bad. If the ruling stands you can expect some draconian measures put into place by the service providers which will ultimately end up denying service from anyone who even looks like they may be violating copyrights. Won't matter whether they are or not. The bar would be set very low by the ISP to insure they don't get fined or sued later. They would also send the copyright holder the information on the customer. Not only would the customer lose their ISP they would also be fending off the copyright owners looking for payment.

    7. Re:WAIT by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      My experience with Cox over several years and different houses was just the opposite.
      Absolutely terrible.

      Price was no different, but getting them to fix their dying upstream box took months.

    8. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 15 years I had a DVR and two remotes develop problems. On all three occasions I walked into a neighborhood Cox storefront, put the device on the counter, said its going bad, and was handed a new device. For the remotes my wait involved the Cox employee turning around and picking up a box with a remote in it from the shelf and handing it to me, no paperwork involved. For the DVR I had to wait a minute while she walked into the back room and returned with a new DVR in a box. There was another minute for same paperwork where she had to record my name and address and the serial number of the new DVR. As I was leaving she was adding the serial number of the old DVR I had left behind.

      Oh wait, I've purchased two cable modems since their original installations. Neither was cox supplied, I had to call some number and give them make and model and a device ID number. Both calls under two minutes.

      Oh yeah, 15 years ago when originally subscribing the cox installer didn't like the quality of the signal in one room and debugged it, replacing a T-connector in another room.

    9. Re:WAIT by the_povinator · · Score: 4, Interesting
      There is another disturbing aspect to this:

      If it is established that in order to avoid liability, providers must disconnect their customers after a certain number of allegations of infringement (because let's face it, it's rarely going to be practical to determine the factual or legal basis of these alleged infringements), then a new business model is opened up for copyright trolls. If they can obtain lists of email addresses of consumers, then they could send letters to those consumers directly, threatening to send a notice of infringement to their ISP unless a certain amount of money is paid. It would often be in consumers' interest to pay up, to avoid the hassle of disconnection from the internet.

      Or they could send the letter to the ISP directly, and come up with some mechanism to pressure consumers into giving them money to avoid future notices or to somehow get the original notice rescinded. People won't know whether the activity really came from their IP address or not (e.g. their router might have been hacked), and it won't matter since it will hardly ever be worthwhile to bring it to court.

      The threat of taking people to court isn't usually credible, but if a disconnection policy is in place, the threat of disconnection will be very credible. So the trolling business becomes much more lucrative due to higher rates of response. And what are the rules, if any, on sending multiple separate notices for infringements that occurred on the same date? Suppose someone's computer is hacked or they start using a file-sharing application, and they download multiple files on the same day. Could a legal firm send multiple separate notices to the same individual, triggering the disconnection policies of their ISP right away unless the individual were to pay up? It seems very possible.

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    10. Re:WAIT by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      There is another disturbing aspect to this:

      If it is established that in order to avoid liability, providers must disconnect their customers after a certain number of allegations of infringement (because let's face it, it's rarely going to be practical to determine the factual or legal basis of these alleged infringements), .

      What would be the legal liability if they frivolously disconnect someone whose internet connection is connected to security services, medical machines etc and those services are suddenly required. Or simply trying to get legal help to fight a frivolous claim. These days internet access is arguably a utility like electricity and water and the normal phone system which is exempt from liability of the illegal use by there customers. This seems like a mistake on the part of the judiciary and ISP's should fight it as it is not there job to be police - looking at everyone’s internet connection, I suspect and highly illegal, judge listening to and acting on claims by any party, jury i.e. passing a judgement and then executioner cutting of a service without a court order based on individual merit. ISP's should fight this otherwise the compensation payments to customers will be higher than anything Hollywood could inflict

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    11. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good! Let's just watch the economy grind to a halt as fewer and fewer are around to consume their shitty services.

    12. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISP has already stated they are appealing the courts ruling. I suspect the ruling will be reversed on appeal. The judge who rendered this judgment in the first place is an idiot but I imagine the Federal Appeals Court judge will leave that description out of their ruling. Has it become so hard to inject some good ole common sense when these type of decisions are needed? But since the judicial system and the three branches of the federal government are filled with lawyers the chances of some common sense occurring has disappeared.

    13. Re:WAIT by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The whole idea of the service provider being responsible is bullshit. The provide the service, they do not control what it connects to or what connects to it. Want legal recourse then sue the customer, prove you case and than the service provider can act. No one can make empty claim and demand the service provider than pay the legal case of proving it occurred in order to justify breaking contract. Until it is proven in a court of law there is no action that can be taken with regard to breaking of the contract. That is quite clear cut and just shows the corruption of the court and judge in question, clearly shows signs of a pay to get elected, pay for the results you want, corrupt legal system.

      The claim is question is one of, "We don't need to prove shit, we say so and you are guilty and owe us tens of thousands of dollars", this the shifted to the service provider because, yeah, making claims of tens of thousands of dollars with shitty circumstantial evidence, doesn't work. So corrupt courts, allowing really shitty verdicts and forcing appeals, and more court costs.

      They are bound to lose because any ISP must consider how this percent for copyright infringement could spread to real criminal cases and they could become liable for them as well, with bad precedent set (think terrorist communications and holding ISPs liable for aiding terrorism, which means staff and management would become criminally liable).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:WAIT by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Well, I've been a Cox customer in the past and I wouldn't know how they compared to other ISPs at the time because my choice was Cox or nothing....or maybe dialup.

      At the time I thought their speed was decent - plenty enough for my needs at least - their uptime was flawless. Their channel selection on cable was adequate and I don't remember the price being ridiculously high.

      Now granted, this was 10 years ago and I may have been lucky, because they don't treat all markets the same, but this was a choice of sucking Cox or not getting any internet at all - besides maybe dialup with a Cox land line.

      The one complaint I had with Cox was their inability to apply payments properly. It could be that I denied having a SSN (in truth I just refuse to give it out like it's candy) but I had phone, internet and cable TV with them, but apparently phone service was regulated differently - that is, the state seemed to view it as an essential utility so I got billed separately for phone and internet/cable TV service.

      If I understood correctly, they were allowed to shut off your internet/Cable TV much more easily than they could cut off your phone service for non-payment.

      I still wrote checks (printed them actually) and sent them via USPS to my creditors in those days and I thought it was stupid to have to write 2 checks to Cox each month. Not to worry they assured me. Just write one check for everything and we'll apply it properly.

      Next month I get two bills, one for phone and one for internet/cable TV. I have a credit balance on the phone and a past due amount on the internet/cable TV equal to the credit balance on the phone bill.

      And that was the last time I ever had a land line in my home.

    15. Re:WAIT by Holi · · Score: 2

      Only if they have emails from higher up executives stating that terminated customers should be notified that they can sign right back up with no problems.

      I see a lot of people posting here have little to no knowledge of the actual lawsuit and why Cox lost.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    16. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, someone tell me who to root for, I'm so confused.

      When in doubt... Love The Cox.

    17. Re:WAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, someone tell me who to root for, I'm so confused.

      Root for the party that isn't heavily bought off by the music industry. So that rules out most companies, most lower court judges, lawyers, etc etc. Nobody other than a completely bought off judge would ever levy a 25 million $ judgement against an ISP, since it is completely against every legal principle of liability known

  2. $25 or $25 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    edit please

    1. Re:$25 or $25 million by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Come on, it's about the principle.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:$25 or $25 million by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      $25 is closer to the actual damages, so the other one must be the error.

    3. Re:$25 or $25 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, even paying the 25 dollars would set a bad precedent for Cox, who knows how much they might have to pay next time. 50 bucks? 100? Outrageous!

    4. Re:$25 or $25 million by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Considering that Cox's customers probably commit 10-million acts of copyright infringement each year and each act is liable for a statutory fine of $150,000, the total cost of letting this idiotic ruling stand is $1.5-trillion per year. For one ISP.

    5. Re:$25 or $25 million by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has always be a little sloppy on editing, but in recent months the latest batch of editors have shown that they have no concern for anything other than cashing their checks. Quit expecting them to do any reading of the articles before posting.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    6. Re:$25 or $25 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about the money, its about sending a message.

  3. Well that was expected by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a common carrier they would not be liable for such things.

    But ISP's did not want to be a common carrier, they fought it and resisted.

    I guess they will have to just sleep in the bed they made.

    1. Re:Well that was expected by beernutz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I thought the FCC classified them as "common carriers" now.

      Also I thought wording under the CDA was that "Service Providers" were not liable for content posted by their users.

      It sure seems like they would be covered either way.

      --
      (stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
    2. Re:Well that was expected by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought the FCC classified them as "common carriers" now.

      A point which is being contested in court, if I recall correctly...

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re: Well that was expected by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The FCC ought to just make it optional for ISPs to classify themselves as common carriers, which means they have to comply with I.e. net neutrality. If they opt out of it, then they're liable for anything from acts of terrorism to copyright infringement to somebody using their network to solicit murder for hire, and this applies whether the customer uses encryption or not.

    4. Re:Well that was expected by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      If an ISP is inspecting packets on any level except for the purpose of routing them, then it is no longer a common carrier. Ergo, Cox is guilty.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    5. Re:Well that was expected by martinfb · · Score: 1

      This is a really good point. And I am all for making ISPs common carriers, subject to those rules.

      Yet, if ISPs in their current categorization are required to now police content, which seems out of their scope of responsibilities, then perhaps the recording industry should be paying them for that service!


      BTW: Who monitors when my friends cover tunes at a gathering?

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    6. Re:Well that was expected by beernutz · · Score: 1

      I am not sure that is reasonable. Just because they inspect packets, does not mean they can infer intent. If for example they found a packet that looked like a text message with the content "The OP is a go". How should they be required to respond to that?

      Likewise, if they intercept packets that look like file headers and see a file named "Latest.Beiberific.POP.Song.Crap.alt.bin.mp3", but the content is someone pretending to be Tha Beebz, how should they react?

      The only point I am making here, is that there is no way to automate the response to this in any reasonable fashion.

      --
      (stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
    7. Re:Well that was expected by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      You are right, but... they should not be inspecting packets.

      Like the phone company should not be listening to your calls. "Using a computer" changes nothing.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  4. Really? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    Who still pirates music? I haven't downloaded an mp3 in probably 7 years. TV and movies sure, but every song is on youtube and I have youtube red. So why bother?

    1. Re:Really? by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      How is that any different? Most of those songs are not published by the artists/media companies. Sure YouTube will take down a few, but a lot still remain. Are you not doing the exact same thing when you download and view a song on YouTube posted by an un-authorized source as you are doing when you download and view a song from a torrent site?

      Honest question. Wouldn't the ISP's have to police this activity too? Who is to say the lawsuit would stop at the ISP's? If this isn't overturned, couldn't the "rights management" companies turn around and sue the providers who fail to "adequately" shutdown these sources?

    2. Re:Really? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I know this is hard for you to understand but the internet is NOT ubiquitous everywhere. Local > Remote, always.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who still pirates music?

      I have youtube red.

      Ok, so you are older and are now buying your music (essentially). If you can imagine yourself to be younger and unable to pay for things like youtube red, then maybe you'd answer your own question.

    4. Re:Really? by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't the ISP's have to police this activity too?

      No. The ISP is not the police. The ISP does not get to decide what content is legal and what is not. Only a court order can do that.

      Rightscorp and their friends are trying to circumvent the expensive court process by going directly after the ISP. That's it.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    5. Re:Really? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I was younger, there was no such thing as the Internet. I traded albums/tapes with people who liked the same music as me. :)

      Get off my lawn!!!

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    6. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? When I was younger we didn't have records and tapes. We had to make music the old way by chanting and banging on the open faced drums around the camp fire.

      Get off my hunting grounds!

    7. Re:Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Youtube pays money to the artists if it detects their music in a video.
      If anything the problem with youtube is that it's too zealous about that- we've had numerous cases where original artists had their works taken down or money from their own music videos redirected to other media companies they had merely licensed the songs too !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  5. Fine them by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's pointless to try to remove someone's internet access and ridiculous to assume that an ISP is in any way liable. It's a lot like driving -- the DMV can revoke a license but it doesn't stop people from driving, and you can't call the Dept of Public Transportation and blame them.

    Lawsuit should be against the single user.

    Gosh, I thought this whole copyright infringement nonsense was settled with iTunes "pay 30 cents more, share it with whomever you like" policy from 5 years ago.

    1. Re:Fine them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, I thought this whole copyright infringement nonsense was settled with iTunes "pay 30 cents more, share it with whomever you like" policy from 5 years ago.

      Apple never said that the removal of DRM was so you could "share it with whomever you like". The idea behind removing DRM was to make it so that you could share your purchases easily among all of your computers, iPods, etc, not so you could "share" copies with 1,000 complete strangers.

      Likewise, if the city where you live widens a road that runs past a bank, that doesn't mean that they are trying to make armed bank robbery easier. It just means that they are trying to make life easier for all of the people who have legitimate uses of automobiles in mind.

    2. Re:Fine them by martinfb · · Score: 1

      In order for the single user to get caught, someone needs to catch them. Someone with the power to monitor said traffic. Perhaps even those very same someones that Snowden exposed?! IF you catch my drift...

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  6. Report BMG Rights Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we report BMG Rights Management for illegally scanning our computers or servers which they have not been explicitly granted rights to?

    1. Re:Report BMG Rights Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't actually know what's on the computers. They have a third party who says "We have data that suggests 9000 downloads happened and requested that angry letters be sent, which protected you from $900,000 worth of 'future potential damages' so please sign this contract for another year of our clearly valuable service."

      So anyway these sales pitches are admissible evidence, pretty much anything is when you tell the judge copyrights are involved.

  7. Pigs must fly and hell must be icy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cuz I just sided with a cable company.

  8. If it were me ... by gagegage · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd pay the $25.

    1. Re: If it were me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or don't. According to the summary, rather than being ordered to pay, the court only asked them to pay ( I assume this was followed by 'please', 'pretty-please', or the like).

  9. Re:Units? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

    The units are the same... dollars.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  10. Comcast also held responsible by Ant2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    And in other news, Comcast is held responsible for Hillary's illegal email server.

  11. Really quite simple by mikeiver1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is the point. The music and movie industries is trying to force the internet providers into monitoring for infringing downloads. If they do not then the record/movie companies think that internet providers are responsible for the illegal downloads. They are also trying to force the internet providers into sending notices on their behalf to supposed/suspected infringing users and to disconnect them at the whim of the record/movie companies. In essence they are trying to force the internet providers into the role of being the enforcers for them. Of course the internet providers are not to keen on any of this bullshit as it puts all the cost on them. If they comply they lose a cash cow since most of the customers that "MIGHT" be actually infringing do it at most on a very casual basis at worst. These are at most 10% of the public and far less are actually hardcore down loaders and seeders. Also most are likely not cable cutters so they provide a fair bit of monthly recurring income from subscriber packages. So lets see, you can fight the music and movie industries and continue to make a boat load of money a month off of each and every customer or you can kick them at the whim of a group of greedy no talent scum bags and lose a significant chunk of your revenue stream. Wow really hard choice there for the internet providers.

    1. Re:Really quite simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My old ISP was running on PenTeleData's backbone when I lived in Pennsylvania, and every ISP used that backbone. I got banned for life from using that backbone because of 2 movies (my sons) and a piece of software. The software in question was a Super Mario brothers clone that was a programming project for college a student had done, everything I the game was his own original artwork/code. The problem with the software was that the file was named "SuperMario.zip" and THAT is what the monitoring company (employed by Nintendo) based infringement on.

      I discussed the issue with my ISP even and told them to actually OPEN and investigate the contents of the file because their was no infringement but they didn't care to do it, probably because they're not a big enough company to fight off the likes of Nintendo. So, banned for life from using PenTeleData's backbone... that all ISP's used in the area.

      As much as I hate the bigger monopolies, it's nice to now not have to worry about them being bullied by the RIAA and the like.

      Anyway, their hasn't been a large percentage of people pirating since napster was shut down years ago. I for one have been downloading music for almost 20 years and prior to that had stopped buying music altogether (radio was just fine). If not for the web/internet and being able to get music than I probably would have never started PURCHASING music again.

      No matter what it's easier to BUY music these days than it is to pirate it and most do just that, and you have the benefit of having an offsite backup of your music from most services.

  12. Wait, wait by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Cox Communications is responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its subscribers, then whoever built the roads in my town is responsible for crimes carried out by criminals who used those roads.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re: Wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "then whoever built the roads in my town is responsible for crimes carried out by criminals who used those roads."

      The taxpayers paid for the roads, and the police. So they are being responsible.

    2. Re:Wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are.
      How dare they not put cameras every 100 meters on the roads to catch criminals.

      Those roads are an accident waiting to happen.

  13. How about 3 strikes? by mepperpint · · Score: 1

    I've heard 3 strikes before and seems like a reasonable policy for an ISP to apply for disconnecting people, so I propose that ISPs disconnect people who have been found liable in 3 distinct cases for infringement (utilizing their internet connect). This allows us to use a well-known and authoritative method for determining what constitutes a strike. Furthermore, we should restrict it to copyright violations that have occurred in the past 3 years to allow people to reform their illicit behavior.

    1. Re:How about 3 strikes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about fuck that, because who determines the strikes?
      Idiot.

    2. Re:How about 3 strikes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed his point. He said found liable, which means your third strike is after the third successful copyright lawsuit against you. Which is roughly equivalent to saying zero strikes ever.

    3. Re:How about 3 strikes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree wholeheartedly with one change. The original rights holder and their agents also get 3 strikes. If they disconnect more than 3 people who did not download their content illegally, they and all future agents and any transfere of those rights are banned for life from making further requests for disconnections. Some kid downloads illegally without their parents knowledge, disconnect the entire family, strike 1,2,3 STFU and go home rights corp, you are evil douche bags who create nothing but grief. Problem solved!

    4. Re:How about 3 strikes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard 3 strikes before and seems like a reasonable policy for an ISP to apply for disconnecting people, so I propose that ISPs disconnect people who have been found liable in 3 distinct cases for infringement (utilizing their internet connect).

      Most of these cases follow the same pattern, Rightscorp (or similar ilk) create a script that looks for copyrighted name on the internet which then automatically spams ISPs with thousands of threatening emails requesting "a payment to avoid costly prosecution" and demand that the ISPs forward them on to Jane/John Does #1 through #45934. Most of the time the copyrighted name discovered by their script is the only evidence they have and 99.99% of the time they don't even bother to look at the file to see if it actually is a copyrighted work. Thus most ISPs refuse to pass on the extortion letters or ask for some sort of actual evidence that the customer is infringing on copyrighted material. This pisses off scumbags like Rightscorp because it costs them time and money to actually gather evidence (and they are usually too incompetent to gather evidence that would stand up in court).

      That is why I think this is a really dumb idea. Most people targeted by these predators tend to be people that cannot afford a lawsuit. Which is the whole idea, they want Joe Citizen to just pay their extortion letter as that saves them money in court as well as the increasing possibility that the courts themselves will ask for actual evidence. I certainly would not like to go to court every month or two simply because I have copyrighted words in an FTP directory that might or more than likely not resemble famous songs or movie titles. Now if the law required Rightscorp to pay 10x the defendant's legal fees if they lose (and Rightscorp's attorneys must then face a disbarment hearing), then your idea might have merit.

    5. Re:How about 3 strikes? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Well, you just gave people that know how to spoof IPs a shinning new tool to remove who they dislike from the internet.

  14. Cox HAS a three-strikes policy and uses it. by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Trust me. I have two strikes.

    On strike 1, they captive portal, and you can press an "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" button and restart your router/computers.
    On strike 2, they captive portal, and you have to call customer support and get a lecture, where they tell you about strike three.
    On strike 3, it's a one year ban in service.

    1. Re:Cox HAS a three-strikes policy and uses it. by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess there's a few more steps...

      http://copyright.nova.edu/cox-...

      They don't notify you of most of the, but as a customer, it APPEARS to be a three strike policy.

    2. Re:Cox HAS a three-strikes policy and uses it. by Holi · · Score: 1

      Cox has a verified history of ignoring infringement notices and for quickly reactivating accounts of repeat offenders.

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  15. Then fine Governenments for drug trafficking by kgroombr · · Score: 1

    If and ISP can be fined for what takes place on their networks, then the Government should be fined for the drugs that are shipped on their Interstates.

  16. Don't forget the lawyers! by PatientZero · · Score: 4, Funny

    BMG will get the undeserved $25, but the remaining $24,999,975 goes to the lawyers—the real victims here.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  17. In other news: Gutenberg sued as users steal books by careysb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gutenberg has been found guilty of promoting theft of writings, saying that Gutenberg did nothing to stop the users of his presses from printing copyrighted materials.

  18. You want Cox to win ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Quick, someone tell me who to root for, I'm so confused.

    Cox. You don't want ISPs, web site operators, etc to be liable for user actions. That opens up a nasty box of unintended consequences.

    Plus you don't want the Cox subscribers to have to give the record companies $25M. You didn't think the money would somehow come out of corporate funds, executive bonus' and such?

    1. Re:You want Cox to win ... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      You don't want ISPs, web site operators, etc to be liable for user actions. That opens up a nasty box of unintended consequences.

      On the one hand, I agree. While they desperately want to remain in a different class so they can inject ads and extract money, ultimately I believe internet service will be treated as a common carrier. On the other, while it is near impossible a part of me loves the unrealistic thought of having Comcast and AT&T executives be named in lawsuits as vicarious contributors for every crime that crosses their network. If they are liable for what crosses it, every crime from child porn and murders planned online on one extreme, to minors getting access to porn, or even for people discussing petty crimes like "I'm running late, I'll need to drive a little fast and hope I don't get caught." If they want to have ownership of what crosses their networks then with that comes responsibility and liability.

      Plus you don't want the Cox subscribers to have to give the record companies $25M. You didn't think the money would somehow come out of corporate funds, executive bonus' and such?

      It's a situation I pray the lawyers are charging exorbitant rates for: May both Cox and RIAA end up bankrupt, and the lawyers buy themselves large private islands in the south pacific for an early retirement.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  19. Things I can't figure out by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Why does loss of safe harbor even matter for an ISP? What law says losing it magically make one culpable for every byte sent over a network?

    If transmission sent over the ISPs network makes them liable then why isn't the same applicable to their upstream? Why can't rightscorp go after Tier 1 ISPs for all the evil bytes transmitted over their networks?

    1. Re:Things I can't figure out by jittles · · Score: 2

      Why can't rightscorp go after Tier 1 ISPs for all the evil bytes transmitted over their networks?

      Oh god no! Yesterday someone taught me that there are evil bits. Now you're telling me that there are WHOLE BYTES that are evil? My god, where is the pope? We need to have us a good old fashioned internet exorcism!

    2. Re:Things I can't figure out by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Yesterday someone taught me that there are evil bits. Now you're telling me that there are WHOLE BYTES that are evil?

      Does every bit of the evil byte have to be an evil bit? Or just the majority of them? What happens if 4 of the 8 bits are evil? Does it fall back to a tie-breaking checksum bit to see if the checksum is evil or not?

  20. infringers by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    The liability verdict has come as a shock to the Internet provider industry, as it suggests that providers have to actively disconnect repeat alleged infringers. At the moment, many ISPs don't have a solid policy in place where repeat alleged copyright infringers lose their subscription.

    FTFY. Who says they've infringed - BMG Rights Management? Why should anyone believe them?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  21. What if music was played and copied thru a phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a POTS system was used to copy music played into one receiver and recorded on the other, would ATT or whomever also be held responsible? How about a bank robber that uses a road to get away with a crime? Is the state responsible? This is idiotic. The jury must have had some real idiots on it.

  22. Incomplete: Some ISPs WANT to meddle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you aren't mentioning is that some ISPs -- in the name of shareholder value -- want many of the capabilities that take them 80% of the way to helping the RIAA/MPAA.

    • They own a competing service and want to cripple a competitor (e.g. cable-TV versus streaming packets)
    • They want to get more money by sabotaging the privacy of their users (e.g. "supercookies" and ISP-injected headers)
    • They want to get more money by manipulating what users see (e.g. advertisement injection, DNS redirection)

    Personally, I want to see them get hoisted in their own petard: Keep your damn hands off (except for QoS) or else you become liable for anything bad that happens.

    1. Re:Incomplete: Some ISPs WANT to meddle by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      Very true as well.

  23. Cox isn't exactly innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't cry for Cox: They already chose to tamper with user traffic in order to inject their own JS/HTML for advertisements!

    So in your analogy, whoever built the roads is ALSO operating a series of tollbooths, checkpoints where people are searched, and makes a regular practice putting things into people's pockets and luggage.

  24. Re:lie ability by Z80a · · Score: 1

    Why anyone would use an DSP to perform fine CPU tasks like that?
    Those things are meant to perform a crapton of multiply operations and/or shitty youtube videos.

  25. Re:Units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title says $25 million (the dollar sign means 25 million dollars). The second line of the summary says

    The court had found Cox Communications guilty and had asked it to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management a sum of $25 in damages.

    $25 is 25 dollars. Not such a bad fine.

  26. Re:fuck3r by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    The domain is still for sale and no goatse picture to be found. Talk about lame trolling.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  27. Re:fuck3r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    APK's not had time to update that bot since 1998. (He's been busy porting HostFiles to 64-bit.)

  28. Defining a "Common Carrier" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Common Carrier" definition in the US with respect to telecom embedded in it the basic idea that a carrier was not responsible for what they carried as long as they had no way of monitoring the network traffic. If an ISP kept with the principle of network neutrality, that would be true. But once ISPs began shaping traffic, data throttling based on monthly data caps, injecting advertisements, or otherwise interfering with customer data then they were no longer a "common carrier" by that definition. Since they now have the power to regulate traffic based on content, as evidenced by their own actions, they are not partially liable for any illicit traffic on their network.

  29. The story behind the loss. by Holi · · Score: 1
    Cox was in the habit of ignoring infringement notices and not passing them on to their customers. They also violated DMCA provisions that require the termination of repeat offenders by terminating and then offering to reactivate their account after a "stern" warning.

    As we move forward in this challenging time we want to hold on to every subscriber we can. With this in mind if a customer is terminated for DMCA, you are able to reactivate them after you give them a stern warning about violating our AUP and the DMCA. We must still terminate in order for us to be in compliance with safe harbor but once termination is complete, we have fulfilled our obligation. After you reactivate them the DMCA ‘counter’ restarts; The procedure restarts with the sending of warning letters, just like a first offense. This is to be an unwritten semi-policy . . . We do not talk about it or give the subscriber any indication that reactivating them is normal. Use your best judgment and remember to do what is right for our company and subscribers. . . . This only pertains to DMCA violations. It does not pertain to spammers, hackers, etc.

    -Jason Zabek, Cox’s Manager of Customer Abuse Operations.

    there are good reasons why Cox was found to have lost Safe Harbor since they were violating the privisions in the DMCA that afforded them that protection.
    https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  30. Good deal by Negafox · · Score: 1

    "pay music publisher BMG Rights Management a sum of $25 in damages" Damn. I'd just pay the $25 and call it a day.

  31. Satellite Internet on the high seas? by xororand · · Score: 1

    Reminder that copyright infringement is not "piracy".

    In fact a recent court decision declared it slander:
    https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-...
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

  32. Re:In other news: Gutenberg sued as users steal bo by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Ford also sued for leased car used as get away vehicle.

  33. Easy fix. by waspleg · · Score: 2

    Internet Access = Human Right, at least in the modern western west it's basically impossible to live without it (find a job, etc).

    As such ISPs need to be common carriers whether they like it or not. Regulated as a utility like power and water.

  34. Re:In other news: Gutenberg sued as users steal bo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a fairly poor example, as clearly in a pre-electricity world there was no way to know how a machine you had once created was being used 50 miles away from where you are.

    A better analogy would be if you owned a large apartment complex, and one of your tenants was found to be running a prostitution business from one of the rooms. Notionally you could be in a place to find out who was running it, where they were running it, and you could stop it.

    Whether you should or not is another question. And if you should, the mechanism by which you should do so is yet another question.

  35. What is preventing simple errors from being fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... $25 Million Verdict
     
    ... a sum of $25 in damages

    Why does slashdot persistently fail to correct these kinds of glaring and highly visible errors?

    It's amazing to me that so much effort has been spent on modding all the posts to this thread -- and yet no effort at all was spent on fixing a very visible and jarring error in the summary. (It's particularly ironic when a post about the error itself gets modded up.)

    I've noticed this phenomenon many times with slashdot articles. Can somebody explain to me what pathology is at work here? I'm genuinely baffled by this.

  36. DIDNT THEY READ THE BIG SLASHDOT WARNINGS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oops. I mean FBI. Same thing.

    NO BOAT NO PIRATE

    Fining little 10 year old Jamie $30,000 for downloading a Taylor Swift album should be death penalty for the sake of do not breed.

  37. Philadelphia cops beat you to that one. by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > A better analogy would be if you owned a large apartment complex, and one of
    > your tenants was found to be running a prostitution business from one of the
    > rooms. Notionally you could be in a place to find out who was running it, where
    > they were running it, and you could stop it.

    > Whether you should or not is another question. And if you should, the
    > mechanism by which you should do so is yet another question.

    You may think you're making up stupid shit as a counter-example... but...

    1) unknown to parents, their son sells drugs from home
    2) police seize the parents' house
    3) profit

    See http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/...

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user