Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels File 'Billion Dollar' Piracy Lawsuit Against ISP Cox (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: This week Cox's problems doubled after a group of high profile record labels filed a new piracy liability lawsuit against the Internet provider. Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Music, Universal Music, Warner Bros Records, and several others accuse the company of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers. The labels argue that Cox has knowingly contributed to the piracy activities of its subscribers and that it substantially profited from this activity. All at the expense of the record labels and other rightsholders. "Indeed, for years, Cox deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb its customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others' copyrights -- even once Cox became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement," the complaint reads. To stop the infringing activities, the music companies sent hundreds of thousands of notices to the Internet provider. This didn't help much, they claim, noting that Cox actively limited the number of notices it processed.
"Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to any of its subscribers' infringements that exceeded its 'cap.'" Cox has previously stressed that it implemented a "thirteen-strike policy" to deal with the issue. According to the record labels, it is clear that Cox intentionally ignored these repeated copyright infringements. As such, they believe that the ISP is liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. As compensation for the claimed losses, the companies demand statutory or actual damages, as well as coverage for their attorney fees and other costs. Since the complaint lists over 10,000 musical works, and there's a statutory maximum of $150,000 per work, the case could in theory cost Cox more than $1.5 billion.
"Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to any of its subscribers' infringements that exceeded its 'cap.'" Cox has previously stressed that it implemented a "thirteen-strike policy" to deal with the issue. According to the record labels, it is clear that Cox intentionally ignored these repeated copyright infringements. As such, they believe that the ISP is liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. As compensation for the claimed losses, the companies demand statutory or actual damages, as well as coverage for their attorney fees and other costs. Since the complaint lists over 10,000 musical works, and there's a statutory maximum of $150,000 per work, the case could in theory cost Cox more than $1.5 billion.
How do ISPs "contribute" to piracy, and by that I mean that they do something that aids or enables piracy specifically, instead of just providing a conduit to anything and anyone? By the same token: how have ISPs profited from piracy specifically... do they charge extra for Torrent traffic or something? That is not at all the same thing as "refusing to take measures", the latter should only be actionable if the ISPs are actually responsible for curtailing piracy. Or are the cops now going to send my speeding tickets to the authority responsible for our highways as well, because they "refuse to take measures" to make me slow down?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I think this touches upon common carrier status. Clearly if they have a right to throttle and selectively manage who people can communicate with by becoming a "selective" conduit, a right they have demanded in rejecting net neutrality, they are asserting they have both that right and also the explicit legal responsibility/liabilities for all traffic that does pass thru their network. Clearly the sharks are circling...
I'll fully support their actions when we go back to a 20 year copyright instead of the ridiculous 140 years under the current system. It is obscene that photos and recordings of WWII won't be freely available until generations that haven't even been born yet are adults.
ISP's are not responsible for anything their clients do.
They are a service provider. They have to provide a service without prejudice.
They don't have to monitor what the end users are doing. that would in fact be an invasion of privacy and probably be a human rights violation.
This is akin to blaming power companies for terrorism, as they used someones power while scheming their evil schemes.
Take all the music executives out back and cave their skull in with a sledgehammer. Problem solved. I'm tired of hearing about this shit. I don't care about their shitty-ass "Music" they produce anyways. I don't download. Couldn't care less about it. If they produce something of true value, people would buy it. What they produce is shit-drivel.
... this is "alleged infringement" until such time it has been investigated and been proven.
Last time I checked, the "presumption of innocence" was still a corner-stone of the rule of law for most - nominally civilised - countries.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
May they all lose.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The proper response to a criminal law like DCMA is "FOAD".
I'll fully support their actions when we go back to a 20 year copyright instead of the ridiculous 140 years under the current system. It is obscene that photos and recordings of WWII won't be freely available until generations that haven't even been born yet are adults.
LOL! In 20 years they're going to extend it all over again. God forbid that Steamboat Willie should ever enter the public domain.
(or maybe what we really need is for copyright owners to pay to extend protection beyond a certain time, eg. if Disney wants perpetual copyrights on its stuff then they should pay a yearly fee for it. Any stuff that isn't making a useful amount money will then enter the public domain automatically)
No sig today...
Free for 20 years and then requiring a renewal fee would solve 90% of the copyright's problems. The fee bit is critical since it achieves two purposes, it solves the orphan work problem and it removes copyright protection from all of the non economically viable works. Plus it creates a database of exactly what is under copyright. I'm fine with 20 year renewal periods, but it would be for an escalating fee on each renewal. This model allows extremely costly works like big budget movies to maintain copyright indefinitely while simultaneously pushing all of the minor items that make up our culture into the public domain.
Nobody is going to rebel for internet "rights". Nobody. It's a lost battle, no a lost WAR. It's over. The content industry has won long ago. Now you can act like sensible adults and get over it or keep crying and hollering like little children. Your choice. It's not going to change anything anyway. The internet is lost to Big Money. Deal with it.