Cox Denies Liability for Pirating Subscribers, Appeals $25 Million Verdict

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I don't know how you guys feel about this case but personally I hope Cox wins this case on appeal. It's not that I support piracy, I just don't think your ISP should have to act as an enforcer on behalf of the music industry by terminating accounts of "repeat" offenders when the accused have not had the opportunity to challenge the charges against them in court.

Internet provider Cox Communications maintains that it's not responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its subscribers. The company has announced that it will appeal the $25 million damages verdict in its case against music publisher BMG.
 
The problem here is that they don't know who the accused are and can't find that info without the aid of the ISP. So it is a little bit of a catch there. Think of it like you own and manage an apartment complex where the only way in is to have a key or be buzzed. It is known that the person in Apartment 18 is doing something illegal however the police don't know the person's name. So they ask you the name, you refuse to give them the name and you refuse to let them in. At that point you are interfering with the legal process. That is the same here, Cox is the one in charge of who is in what room and letting people in. If they refuse to let people in or give them information that is required by law then they are interfering with a legal process. The only valid action then is to say that you are going to charge them with the crime since they are not letting you in. Just like you would arrest the person running the apartment is they know something illegal is going on, allows it to happen and prevents legal action being taken against the people in the apartment.
 
Exavior said:
Think of it like you own and manage an apartment complex where the only way in is to have a key or be buzzed. It is known that the person in Apartment 18 is doing something illegal however the police don't know the person's name.
Click to expand...

Your example is correct...when we are talking about law enforcement.

In the case with Cox, you have BMG showing up at their door demanding access to their customers to extort money from them / accuse them of a crime without any proof. Are the neighbors downloading off an open wi-fi? Is it a friend using your wi-fi? Family member? Who knows? The reason you don't know because there is no legal due process for the people being accused of piracy. So these people are to be cut off from a service they pay for because BMG says so? How is that right?
 
What Cox should do is block music services that accuse them of piracy.

(Joking of course)
 
If the Trans Pacific Partnership passes in the lame duck session of Congress / President (and mark my words it will) this whole lawsuit with Cox will be a moot point. The TPP had sweeping provisions in it that will force ISP's to police it's customers online activity and report all piracy and other e-crimes to the proper authorities. ISP's no longer have the option to opt out as they do currently. Worse, is the TPP is a "treaty" so when it's the law of the land there is no overturning any of it's provisions unless all of the partnered countries agree to it. We only know what we do about the TPP through draft copies given to Wikileaks. Only 5 of the 29 chapters deal with trade. The rest is largely a secret, but what has been revealed (like the internet isp provision I'm discussing) is outrageous and draconian to say the least. The final signed copy of this treaty, certain chapters will be secret for four full years before anyone in the public is allowed to see it yet it will be the law of the land!
 
Steve said:
Your example is correct...when we are talking about law enforcement.

In the case with Cox, you have BMG showing up at their door demanding access to their customers to extort money from them / accuse them of a crime without any proof. Are the neighbors downloading off an open wi-fi? Is it a friend using your wi-fi? Family member? Who knows? The reason you don't know because there is no legal due process for the people being accused of piracy. So these people are to be cut off from a service they pay for because BMG says so? How is that right?
Click to expand...

VERY well said and my sentiments exactly. The illegality of the act piracy here, while obviously the focus of plaintiff, is irrelevant in regards to what they are attempting to do. They see themselves as judge and jury and believe they have the right to levy judgments against anybody they wish without due legal process. Its literal extortion/blackmail and if applied to nearly any other situation would be illegal in and of itself. They have every right to hire an investigator, obtain proof, and take that shit to court like everybody else has to do in similar situations. Its nobody else's fault that it's time consuming and expensive to do that legally. Boo fucking hoo, change your fucking business model. That's really all this comes down to, they are trying desperately to hold on to a business model that just doesn't work any more, and they use their position of wealth and power over the industry in a desperate strong arm attempt to hold on to their profits.
 
do we sue the local city for allowing bank robbers get away on public streets? no, should be the same for internet providers.
 
Steve said:
Your example is correct...when we are talking about law enforcement.

In the case with Cox, you have BMG showing up at their door demanding access to their customers to extort money from them / accuse them of a crime without any proof. Are the neighbors downloading off an open wi-fi? Is it a friend using your wi-fi? Family member? Who knows? The reason you don't know because there is no legal due process for the people being accused of piracy. So these people are to be cut off from a service they pay for because BMG says so? How is that right?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

They need to get a court order requiring COX to supply the information on each customer (and convince a court that the information is needed/legit), they should not be able to just make a request demanding COX provide the information.
 
Exavior said:
The problem here is that they don't know who the accused are and can't find that info without the aid of the ISP. So it is a little bit of a catch there. Think of it like you own and manage an apartment complex where the only way in is to have a key or be buzzed. It is known that the person in Apartment 18 is doing something illegal however the police don't know the person's name. So they ask you the name, you refuse to give them the name and you refuse to let them in. At that point you are interfering with the legal process. That is the same here, Cox is the one in charge of who is in what room and letting people in. If they refuse to let people in or give them information that is required by law then they are interfering with a legal process. The only valid action then is to say that you are going to charge them with the crime since they are not letting you in. Just like you would arrest the person running the apartment is they know something illegal is going on, allows it to happen and prevents legal action being taken against the people in the apartment.
Click to expand...

But in any case not involving the internet, you don't have to let the police in if they don't have a warrant. This ruling sets the precedence that publishers merely have to accuse a user and report them to the ISP's to have their service stopped. They like it this way so they don't have to pay for lawyers and follow things like the law and legal procedures that slow down them stopping suspected pirates. If Cox was being served a warrant against individual users, then I would be okay with them providing the requested information so that any potential lawsuit could proceed. This way the accused is given due process.
 
Now wouldn't it be funny if BMG employees were pirating material over Cox's network. Cox could then tell BMG, "I got your pirates right here!"
 
Quartz-1 said:
If you were to send Brent a DVD through the post, would the postal service be liable? How about if you sent it by UPS or FedEx?
Click to expand...

Postal service is it's own special beast in many ways. UPS and fedex are common carriers, and that protects them from shit like this. Cable companies worked hard to be exempted from common carrier status and the regulations that go with it. So... the analogy you are trying to use is not applicable in any way.
 
raz-0 said:
UPS and fedex are common carriers, and that protects them from shit like this. Cable companies worked hard to be exempted from common carrier status and the regulations that go with it
Click to expand...

They did? I thought that the reverse was the case.
 
Quartz-1 said:
They did? I thought that the reverse was the case.
Click to expand...

You thought wrong. They have been in court repeatedly since 1996 arguing they are not subject to title II regulations on common carriers. The distinction they argue around seems to have its basis in Telco divestiture and ilec vs. clec vs. total service resellers.
 
Iceshot said:
If the Trans Pacific Partnership passes in the lame duck session of Congress / President (and mark my words it will) this whole lawsuit with Cox will be a moot point. The TPP had sweeping provisions in it that will force ISP's to police it's customers online activity and report all piracy and other e-crimes to the proper authorities. ISP's no longer have the option to opt out as they do currently. Worse, is the TPP is a "treaty" so when it's the law of the land there is no overturning any of it's provisions unless all of the partnered countries agree to it. We only know what we do about the TPP through draft copies given to Wikileaks. Only 5 of the 29 chapters deal with trade. The rest is largely a secret, but what has been revealed (like the internet isp provision I'm discussing) is outrageous and draconian to say the least. The final signed copy of this treaty, certain chapters will be secret for four full years before anyone in the public is allowed to see it yet it will be the law of the land!
Click to expand...

My Spanish VPN doesn't give a fuck. In Spain private not for profit personal use piracy is legal. All they see is encrypted traffic.
 
Steve said:
Your example is correct...when we are talking about law enforcement.

In the case with Cox, you have BMG showing up at their door demanding access to their customers to extort money from them / accuse them of a crime without any proof. Are the neighbors downloading off an open wi-fi? Is it a friend using your wi-fi? Family member? Who knows? The reason you don't know because there is no legal due process for the people being accused of piracy. So these people are to be cut off from a service they pay for because BMG says so? How is that right?
Click to expand...

The problem is that BMG wasn't asking for money or even information. They were sending DMCA notifications where are supposed to be sent to the subscribers then after 6 strikes some action is to be taken (slower speeds, whatever). At no time during this process would Cox ever be expected to hand over information. They are simply being asked (legally by the DMCA) to be the mail man for a person that the sending the letter since they don't know the person they are sending it to. If you get 6 notifications about this act, at some point you should probably be trying to have a talk with the people using your connection or learn how to lock it down. Now what could or would have been the end result of the notifications is a different thing as to how many would have been take to civil court over anything, but is still within the current scope of the law like it or not how they wrote it.


frelled said:
But in any case not involving the internet, you don't have to let the police in if they don't have a warrant. This ruling sets the precedence that publishers merely have to accuse a user and report them to the ISP's to have their service stopped. They like it this way so they don't have to pay for lawyers and follow things like the law and legal procedures that slow down them stopping suspected pirates. If Cox was being served a warrant against individual users, then I would be okay with them providing the requested information so that any potential lawsuit could proceed. This way the accused is given due process.
Click to expand...

The law happens to disagree with you here. I do not need a warrant to send a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube and have them pull a video that I own the rights to. Stop and think for a moment about the tie up with the legal system if Disney had to get a court issued warrant to send to YouTube for every single pirated video or clip that they wanted removed, then add in everyone else having to do that. They would need to open court houses that were only for that reason if those needed court orders. That said, when it comes to this case no information was being asked for. Cox was supposed to be sending the DMCA violations notices to their customers. They would have been the only one that knew who the people were, however they refused to do this. That is why this came about. They were sent over 1300 notices from BMG that they just ignored which is in direct violation of the DMCA safe harbor protection thus they put themselves on the block as the responsible party.

Semantics said:
DMCA in theory protects the ISP from this.
Click to expand...

When they actually follow the rules yes. That is the problem here. Cox refused to give any customers the DMCA letters telling them that they were found to be downloading stuff. So for their 6 strikes that people got, Cox just tossed all the letters in the garbage and didn't want to be bothered. The protection only applies if you act upon any DMCA takedown notice or DMCA violation notice that you receive. If you willing make the choice to ignore any notifications that you receive then you are no longer protected.
 
Exavior said:
Stop and think for a moment about the tie up with the legal system if Disney had to get a court issued warrant to send to YouTube for every single pirated video or clip that they wanted removed, then add in everyone else having to do that.
Click to expand...
And that's what needs to be done. It's called innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof must lie with the accuser. I understand that it would involve millions of picayune lawsuits, and then it would have to be decided if it were worth the trouble to do so (it's not, but we all know that). The laws of the land are for protection of the citizens rights to due process. Not for protection of the corporations desire for more money. I understand that most legislation hasn't been going that direction recently, but that's wrong, too.

I'm stealing something? OK. Prove it. At this point, it's like trying to prosecute someone for walking through a supermarket and grabbing a grape, and eating it. If everyone were doing it, it would be worth looking into. But the supermarkets know that it's not general behavior, so they ignore it. At this point, we all know it's just a matter of greed on the part of the copyright holders (99.9% of the time, anyway).
 
Exavior said:
The problem here is that they don't know who the accused are and can't find that info without the aid of the ISP. So it is a little bit of a catch there. Think of it like you own and manage an apartment complex where the only way in is to have a key or be buzzed. It is known that the person in Apartment 18 is doing something illegal however the police don't know the person's name. So they ask you the name, you refuse to give them the name and you refuse to let them in. At that point you are interfering with the legal process. That is the same here, Cox is the one in charge of who is in what room and letting people in. If they refuse to let people in or give them information that is required by law then they are interfering with a legal process. The only valid action then is to say that you are going to charge them with the crime since they are not letting you in. Just like you would arrest the person running the apartment is they know something illegal is going on, allows it to happen and prevents legal action being taken against the people in the apartment.
Click to expand...


I respect your opinion, however this is bullshit. Stop giving into corporations and NSA excuses. Seriously, the Constitution trumps all laws. Don't give away your freedoms, once it is lost...it's gone forever. I don't know who you are or what you do for a living. If you ever get the chance to sit in a high profile meeting in Government or Corporations looking to screw joe blow down the street. I think you will be shocked how corrupt these asshats are. These bureaucrats do not view us as humans, but pawns to be taxes and fleeted for their pleasure. If the law wants to catch the illegal avtivitiy, convince a judge and get a search warrant. There are so many ways to catch illegal piracy, I am not going into the details here.

I am tired how educational institutions are brainwashing our youth into giving away their freedoms over crumbs of spoiled cheese.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top