Pirating Subscribers Could Cost Cox Over $200 Million

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I can't help myself, I have to crack a "Piracy is not a victimless crime" joke. I think Cox might be learning this the hard way right about now. :eek:

Internet provider Cox Communications is facing more than $200 million in potential damages, if a jury holds it responsible for the copyright infringements of its subscribers. According to music publisher BMG there is no doubt that Cox is responsible. After a week of trial hearings the company has asked the court to confirm this, arguing that the ISP failed to rebut its allegations.
 
How did this get to court!?
If this passes, this would be very very bad for the people of America.

We do not sue the city because roads are used to commit crimes.
 
So...... DMCA means nothing when it doesn't benefit them?
 
During the trial hearings BMG revealed that the tracking company Rightscorp downloaded more than 150,000 copies of their copyrighted works directly from Cox subscribers. Because Rightscorp doesn’t capture everything, the true figure is expected to be even higher.
Click to expand...

So, Rightscorp should be sued for 70 trillion dollars for downloading those copyrighted works.
 
If Cox advertises "share music," that could be a problem (downloading, not so much). But that aside, does cox forward notifications to the users, or at least tell them that they received a complaint?

I can see not forwarding a request if it asks for money, but they should still notify customers that a complaint was filed.
 
Kalabalana said:
We do not sue the city because roads are used to commit crimes.
Click to expand...
We do sue cities though when the cops don't respond quick enough, when the cops respond with too much force, if someone gets injured while cops are trying to stop crime...

It's a sue happy country we live in... need to get used to it.
 
sfsuphysics said:
We do sue cities though when the cops don't respond quick enough, when the cops respond with too much force, if someone gets injured while cops are trying to stop crime...

It's a sue happy country we live in... need to get used to it.
Click to expand...

Those aren't really valid examples though. Cops taking mad long to respond to something when they are literally fucking everywhere doesn't make sense. Sue worthy? Eh, not really, but I have had them take 15 minutes to respond to a call I made to them once even though my city is mad small and, like I said, I see cops all the time.

As far as cops responding with too much force I've never heard of anyone suing because of that. I can understand if the cops USE that overly necessary force against someone but just showing up with it isn't a problem.

If someone get's injured while stopping a crime this, again, depends on the situation. If a cop fires in a crowd trying to shoot someone and hits or kills an innocent then damn straight they should be sued because that's fucking stupid. If a cop kills someone during a crime because they're using too much force or decides to shoot someone because they're running away from some petty crime then, again, a lawsuit is justified.

As far as lawsuits go I'm for them. It seems to be the only damn way things ACTUALLY change. Do you think governments cracking down on police and requiring body cameras and all this other stuff that's happening would actually happen if lawsuits WEREN'T involved? Money talks and if taking money from people or institutions is the only way to get them to shape up and quit hiring/promoting idiots then so be it.
 
sfsuphysics said:
We do sue cities though when the cops don't respond quick enough, when the cops respond with too much force, if someone gets injured while cops are trying to stop crime...

It's a sue happy country we live in... need to get used to it.
Click to expand...

Cops are not judges, nor are they juries, nor are they executioners. Well at least originally they weren't.

That's where the concern is.
 
Also, lawsuits ARE the approved way of handling things in this country. The awards are problematic, but in an ideal world according to our government, yes everyone would sue everyone.
 
So would that make BMG music liable for any noise violations related to music from any of their artists? Seems fair
 
If this succeeds, then all the Telcoms could be charged with aiding terrorists, because terrorists use their network to communicate with each other.
 
Briguyatx said:
So would that make BMG music liable for any noise violations related to music from any of their artists? Seems fair
Click to expand...

BMG should also be held accountable for the piracy if the ISP is liable. There wouldn't be any piracy if they didn't publish their music. If they're going to publish it, then it falls on them to ensure that there is adequate protection for loss prevention.
 
nilepez said:
If Cox advertises "share music," that could be a problem (downloading, not so much). But that aside, does cox forward notifications to the users, or at least tell them that they received a complaint?

I can see not forwarding a request if it asks for money, but they should still notify customers that a complaint was filed.
Click to expand...

Been on cox for over a decade. Back when I was a dumb highschooler i'd pirate a metric ton, and got a few messages. Never was sued or fined, but they did warn me when complaints were made and gave a warning that if a certain number (I think 5) they would suspend service or whatever. That to me is a totally fair way with dealing with the problem. If this lawsuit goes through court, then it shows logic and reason are superseded by campaign contributions in this country
 
nilepez said:
If Cox advertises "share music," that could be a problem (downloading, not so much). But that aside, does cox forward notifications to the users, or at least tell them that they received a complaint?

I can see not forwarding a request if it asks for money, but they should still notify customers that a complaint was filed.
Click to expand...

Cox does forward the complaints along. I have had to ban Torrents in entirety at a couple of clients due to users downloading movies etc... that they should not have been at work.
 
Kalabalana said:
We do not sue the city because roads are used to commit crimes.
Click to expand...

More like we should sue the city/state any time we get a speeding ticket. Because the roads are just enabling people to speed.
 
MrGoat said:
Cox does forward the complaints along. I have had to ban Torrents in entirety at a couple of clients due to users downloading movies etc... that they should not have been at work.
Click to expand...

At work? Wow! That's almost as bad as browsing porn at work.
 
nilepez said:
At work? Wow! That's almost as bad as browsing porn at work.
Click to expand...

I've seen both.... multiple times.

I don't capture actual packets, but I track activity.
If the internet is slow or I see excessive traffic, I look at who is generating that traffic and check the logs for where they are going and the type of traffic. Usually it's legitimate traffic (i.e. someone downloading files form a customer). If it looks like torrent traffic, I do a scan of their local drive to see what they are downloading - I case I want a copy :) and their manager is informed of their illegal activity. If they get caught again, they will end up looking for another job, unless they are a key employee, then they will likely be given a 2nd chance.
 
What happened to Safe Harbor?

If ISPs are responsible for the actions of their subscribers, then they're also open to charges of facilitating terrorism, bullying, theft, vandalism, and Rickrolling.

The RIAA just hates that they can't capture all the deadweight loss from their pricing model, so they whine about it. Even retail knows there's going to be some "shrinkage" (read: theft/lost profits) and they account for it. Any economist will tell you there's an amount of any "undesirable" activity that simply costs too much to be worth getting bothered about.
 
Kalabalana said:
How did this get to court!?
If this passes, this would be very very bad for the people of America.

We do not sue the city because roads are used to commit crimes.
Click to expand...


It got to court because companies and individuals have a right to seek civil redress in a court of law if they feel that they have been injured by the actions or in-actions of others.


But we do sue cities that contribute to accidents because they failed to maintain their traffic lights in working order.

http://www.losangelespersonalinjurylawyers.co/faulty-traffic-signal-lights-accident-lawsuit/
 
nilepez said:
If Cox advertises "share music," that could be a problem (downloading, not so much). But that aside, does cox forward notifications to the users, or at least tell them that they received a complaint?

I can see not forwarding a request if it asks for money, but they should still notify customers that a complaint was filed.
Click to expand...

Not at all, not all music is a copyrighted work, or many artists freely share some of their works. That statement is a red hearing but it does serve a purpose. In order to defend against the statement you must acknowledge that some works are protected and others are not. That means you have to admit to being aware that some works are supposed to be protected.
 
Sovereign said:
What happened to Safe Harbor?

If ISPs are responsible for the actions of their subscribers, then they're also open to charges of facilitating terrorism, bullying, theft, vandalism, and Rickrolling.

The RIAA just hates that they can't capture all the deadweight loss from their pricing model, so they whine about it. Even retail knows there's going to be some "shrinkage" (read: theft/lost profits) and they account for it. Any economist will tell you there's an amount of any "undesirable" activity that simply costs too much to be worth getting bothered about.
Click to expand...

Cox was denied safe harder protects by the Judge.

Cox hasn’t had an easy defense during the trial. A week before it started Judge O’Grady issued an order declaring that Cox is not entitled to DMCA safe-harbor protections, as the company failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.
Click to expand...
 
lcpiper said:
No, because BMG, as the copyright holder, hired Rightscorp to pursue this for them.

Doh
Click to expand...

But, they uploaded it to. So, they were distributing the material rightfully. I was just taking advantage of the free upload from a legit upload source. :D

(read my title if you think I'm serious).
 
lcpiper said:
Not at all, not all music is a copyrighted work, or many artists freely share some of their works. That statement is a red hearing but it does serve a purpose. In order to defend against the statement you must acknowledge that some works are protected and others are not. That means you have to admit to being aware that some works are supposed to be protected.
Click to expand...

I understand, but that argument would push me toward siding with BMG. That said, my gut says virtually every other argument would push me towards siding with Cox.
 
As much as I hate BMG getting that much as I think there should be more realistic numbers assigned to this type of stuff, Cox has refused to notify customers of any wrong doing. So they are basically taking full responsible then for their customers. All they had to do was pass on any notices they got and this would have been a none issue for them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top