Slashdot Mirror
Cox Denies Liability for Pirating Subscribers, Appeals $25 Million Verdict (torrentfreak.com)
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.
Quick, someone tell me who to root for, I'm so confused.
edit please
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.
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.
I'd pay the $25.
The units are the same... dollars.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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. . . .
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.
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
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.