Cox Communications Sued for in Excess of $1 Billion for Ignoring Piracy by Customers

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,728
Cox Communications has been hit with an over $1 billion lawsuit after multiple record labels sued the ISP for allegedly ignoring copyright infringement by customers. Under US law an ISP must take certain steps when sent a DMCA take down notice. Cox is accused of limiting the amount of notices that it would process and turning a blind eye to pirates. Cox says that it has a "13-strike policy" and but record labels say it would only temporarily disconnect an infringing account. Then accounts were reinstated without repercussions even though some had been warned over 100 times.

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.
 

pcgeekesq

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
1,399
I have Cox Internet. It's fast, reliable, and affordable. Hopefully none of this will change that.
 

MNKyDeth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
163
If I was Cox I would just cash everything out as fast as I could and just file bankruptancy so they couldn't take any of my monies. Say a good day and fuck you to the customers and leave them to the shills.
 

Qthulu

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
103
It's not Cox responsibility to police dmca and wholly shoulder the financial burden of doing so. I've read about the situation with cox and record labels in the past and it amounts to record labels trying to bully Cox into conducting business as they see fit.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Cox is accused of limiting the amount of notices that it would process


That's reasonable since the entertainment industry automates the notices to the quantity of spam. It's probably expensive for companies sending out all of the notices just in postage alone.

If they're not going to pay a reasonable processing fee, I'd say they don't get priority support.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,559

toast0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,399
Upon reviewing the law, I think Cox falls under the part of the DMCA that applies to 'transitoey digital networks', and if so, there's no fiscal liability; the only relief available is compliance to supoenas of identity of customers (although, per case law, good luck), or having a judge order some customers to be disconnected. Cox isn't hosting any content, so it's not subject to takedown requests.
 

RealBeast

Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
648
Cox will win or their attorneys would have advised them to alter their practices already.

Contributory and vicarious infringement are very difficult cases for a plaintiff to win.

Go Cox! (and I refer only to the cable company) ;)
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
Didn't this all start because Cox was demanding due process or credible evidence for all claims by the record labels? I believe they were standing with the numerous cases in which courts ruled that an IP address is not enough to link to an infringer and were demanding more than just an IP address from them.
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.136.125
K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-37
Elf-man, LLC. v. Does 1 - 152
VPR Internationale v Does 1-1017

hahahahaha

expecting the sue happy "music" companies to provide actual evidence?

that's adorable.
 

Dead Parrot

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
2,831
How is Cox profiting from its subscriber's alleged piracy activities? Are the alleged pirates sharing profits with Cox? As far as I can tell, Cox collects the same ISP fees regardless of if an end user shares a movie or just views a movie. Seems likes the plaintiffs will have to prove that the alleged violators are using Cox instead of the many other ISPs in the area because of Cox's alleged failures to act on the DMCA notices. At least to make the "profiting from" part of the lawsuit.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
6,810
How is Cox profiting from its subscriber's alleged piracy activities? Are the alleged pirates sharing profits with Cox? As far as I can tell, Cox collects the same ISP fees regardless of if an end user shares a movie or just views a movie. Seems likes the plaintiffs will have to prove that the alleged violators are using Cox instead of the many other ISPs in the area because of Cox's alleged failures to act on the DMCA notices. At least to make the "profiting from" part of the lawsuit.
You could say they're profiting because customers would use another service if Cox enforced their rules, but that's a bit of a stretch.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
691
vpn everything. pirate all content, even netflix shows. bleed em and well be free of these stupid companies. passionate artists will continue to create movies and music without $300 million marketing and effects budgets. itll survive. itll be okay.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
I am curious as to what people think is expensive?
Do you mind sharing your speed and Monthly cost?
Not the person you asked but I had Cox from 2006-2007 in San Diego, pacific beach and over off 55th and El Cajon (can’t believe I remember that) and it was 105mbps/$75month.

I miss cox. We torrented so much shit. Best ISP I’ve ever had.

Comcast, ATT, TWC all suck in comparison. I think we had 0 downtime our entire time down there. Speeds were always fast and no need for a VPN. Crazy times
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
I am curious as to what people think is expensive?
Do you mind sharing your speed and Monthly cost?

50mb down, 5mb up, 1TB cap, $85/month.
Only choice as I can't even get slow DSL.

Cable TV pricing is even worse.

Actual price is a little less as I have a small discount for bundling TV and another discount for threatening to cancel the TV service every year :D
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
RIAA is always trolling ways to steal people's money since they can't seem to evolve with the times. There are some instances where they have tried to sue over like 30 songs and wanted $100K plus in rewards....30 songs....not even worth that if it was on a CD dipped platinum.....


They still think CDs and Cassettes are the best way to distribute their content. /s
 

Lenard

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
288
RIAA is always trolling ways to steal people's money since they can't seem to evolve with the times. There are some instances where they have tried to sue over like 30 songs and wanted $100K plus in rewards....30 songs....not even worth that if it was on a CD dipped platinum.....


They still think CDs and Cassettes are the best way to distribute their content. /s


The purpose of the extreme rewards is to restrain others from stealing music through fear.
It is probably not too far off to say that people want music for free, and they will download it for free if there is no consequence.
By getting attention grabbing headlines about grandmothers being bankrupted because grandkids downloaded Bieber they accomplish some suppression. The tactic is effective.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
525
The purpose of the extreme rewards is to restrain others from stealing music through fear.
It is probably not too far off to say that people want music for free, and they will download it for free if there is no consequence.
By getting attention grabbing headlines about grandmothers being bankrupted because grandkids downloaded Bieber they accomplish some suppression. The tactic is effective.

I agree.
This works on me, personally.
 

Ozarkboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
1,938
I remember getting Cox Cable in 1995 in San Diego. Going from dial up to 6mb, that was an experience. Wasn't maybe a month later I got blocked on Napster for sharing Metallica, lol. Funny thing is I had all their stuff on CD/Cassette/DVD/VHS, well after that was not a fan anymore. I get it, do not sell copied music! Wait, I wasn't selling copy right music, what the heck?

P.S. I discovered binaries shortly there after, my collection grew......
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
The purpose of the extreme rewards is to restrain others from stealing music through fear.
It is probably not too far off to say that people want music for free, and they will download it for free if there is no consequence.
By getting attention grabbing headlines about grandmothers being bankrupted because grandkids downloaded Bieber they accomplish some suppression. The tactic is effective.

It's not working though. It's doing nothing to stem the tide. So if they go after Cox, and win, then all the ISP's will all fall in to line and serve up notices based on nothing more than an IP address and a fragment of some torrent 'proving' infringement. It's insane.
 

Cyraxx

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,111
Pirates will always be 1 step ahead of both ISPs and ahead of RIAA/MPAA - I don't know why they even try.
 

Cyraxx

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,111
It's not working though. It's doing nothing to stem the tide. So if they go after Cox, and win, then all the ISP's will all fall in to line and serve up notices based on nothing more than an IP address and a fragment of some torrent 'proving' infringement. It's insane.


And then I will cancel my service with said ISP and then sign up for the competitor... Then the competitor sends me something, then I cancel and re-sign for my previous ISP under my wife's name. Rinse, repeat, flush, etc...
 

Lenard

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
288
It's not working though. It's doing nothing to stem the tide. So if they go after Cox, and win, then all the ISP's will all fall in to line and serve up notices based on nothing more than an IP address and a fragment of some torrent 'proving' infringement. It's insane.

I am not sure you can claim it is doing nothing to stem the tide. I suspect that without the ridiculous monetary damages, ISP notifications of cut-off, and discussion about the issues related to piracy due to the RIAA, many thousands of people, who currently don't, would be downloading things for free. Likewise the difficulty of finding good file sharing sites makes it less likely.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
647
Who wants the price of their subscription to go up due to increased measures needed to police where users go online?
 

Snakebyt

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
1,584
all artists now know they dont make any money from record sales, its all live shows and merch. And sure cox, as well as suddenlink and other will give you a slap on the wrist, thats about all that is needed considering the "crime" . and yes, i would download a god damned car if i could..
 

Shotglass01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,960
And then I will cancel my service with said ISP and then sign up for the competitor... Then the competitor sends me something, then I cancel and re-sign for my previous ISP under my wife's name. Rinse, repeat, flush, etc...

The flip side is that Cox wins and thus the other ISP's don't bother sending notices anymore.

I am not sure you can claim it is doing nothing to stem the tide. I suspect that without the ridiculous monetary damages, ISP notifications of cut-off, and discussion about the issues related to piracy due to the RIAA, many thousands of people, who currently don't, would be downloading things for free. Likewise the difficulty of finding good file sharing sites makes it less likely.

Disagree. As each younger person connects, they immediately start sharing. First it's their goofy challenges, if they survive those, it moves on to films and music. I think sharing has done nothing but increase. You'll find studies and analysis both ways, but if you're not paying for Spotify, you're not paying for music.
 

Lenard

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
288
Disagree. As each younger person connects, they immediately start sharing. First it's their goofy challenges, if they survive those, it moves on to films and music. I think sharing has done nothing but increase. You'll find studies and analysis both ways, but if you're not paying for Spotify, you're not paying for music.

I am not talking about kids. I am talking about 40 y/o guys who have money and don't want to deal with the risk of losing it.

If there were no RIAA suits, or potential consequences I would buy a 24TB NAS device download everything. I would even download kids movies just in case nephews visit.
I would have MARVEL marathon weekend viewing parties and have the back catalogue of every major music artist since Clarence "Frogman" Henry.
I would download every comic book and read it on my Kindle. I have no doubt that there are thousands of people just like myself who only stay out of it because of the hassle and potential risk.
 
Top