Cox Willingly Failed To Disconnect Pirating Subscribers

[HardOCP News]

It looks as though Cox has suffered another setback in its case against BMG Rights Management. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ruled that Cox forfeited its DMCA safe harbor protections after failing to terminate the access of repeat copyright infringers.

District Court Judge Liam O'Grady has just issued a detailed memorandum explaining why Cox isn't entitled to a safe harbor defense. He ruled that Cox willingly failed to disconnect repeat or flagrant 'pirate' subscribers, a decision that could have an enormous impact on all U.S. Internet providers.

 

[Ordeith]

Innocent until proven guilty. When did Cox fail to terminate the internet access of a known repeat copyright infringer after receiving a court order to do so that was created as part of a successful litigation action against the infringer that proved on a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that the individual was actually an infringer?

If that didn't happen, I think the Judge needs to recuse himself for being on the MPAA payroll.

 

[ViperGrendal]

Innocent until proven guilty. When did Cox fail to terminate the internet access of a known repeat copyright infringer after receiving a court order to do so that was created as part of a successful litigation action against the infringer that proved on a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that the individual was actually an infringer?

If that didn't happen, I think the Judge needs to recuse himself for being on the MPAA payroll.

This ^^

 

[DukenukemX]

Cox isn't stupid. You're asking Cox to remove subscribers that violate copyright and what's their benefit? You have to understand how stupid that sounds, especially since there's so many other ways around being disconnected. Get VPN and then register Cox with girlfriend/Wife/parent. If everyone started getting VPN's then ISPs will lose out on the data they could collect, which they sell.

Cox can only lose by doing this.

 

[Compddd]

That judge should be dragged into an alley and beaten with pipes and bottles until he stops moving.

 

[File]

Yeah! Like how batman puts all his opponents to sleep with knives, rockets, and head trauma.

 

[Ragenrok]

That judge should be dragged into an alley and beaten with pipes and bottles until he stops moving.

Its disturbing how many people on this forum have serious mental problems. If you think something like this deserves that harsh a treatment then your absolutely no better than all the copyright jackasses who think its acceptable to sue you for millions of dollars because you stole a few song's. Grow up a bit?

 

[lcpiper]

Innocent until proven guilty. When did Cox fail to terminate the internet access of a known repeat copyright infringer after receiving a court order to do so that was created as part of a successful litigation action against the infringer that proved on a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that the individual was actually an infringer?

If that didn't happen, I think the Judge needs to recuse himself for being on the MPAA payroll.

You don't even need a single infringer, guilty or otherwise, to prove an ISP hasn't initiated actions and or policies consistent with the law. In short, there is a law that tells Cox what they have to do if they find someone might be engaging in piracy. If Cox doesn't have policy in place and take actions based on that policy as prescribed by law, then Cox is taking their chances.

 

[Ordeith]

You don't even need a single infringer, guilty or otherwise, to prove an ISP hasn't initiated actions and or policies consistent with the law. In short, there is a law that tells Cox what they have to do if they find someone might be engaging in piracy. If Cox doesn't have policy in place and take actions based on that policy as prescribed by law, then Cox is taking their chances.

Such an action would violate due process. The government cannot force a company to take action against an individual that is merely accused by a third party to be in the wrong.

 

[the-one1]

Such an action would violate due process. The government cannot force a company to take action against an individual that is merely accused by a third party to be in the wrong.

It's the MPAA we're talking about here.

 

[likeman]

it was interesting the part what Cox was doing for a little bit, when they got a DMCA take down they would disconnect the customer them but then at request they would reconnect them as a new customer (as they treated it as there job as done)

 

[Ordeith]

it was interesting the part what Cox was doing for a little bit, when they got a DMCA take down they would disconnect the customer them but then at request they would reconnect them as a new customer (as they treated it as there job as done)

That is an interesting loophole. Especially if the language of the DMCA didn't specify a minimum amount of time. It would be unreasonable to assume the ban should be for life, and in the face of no further guidance on the issue the ISP should be free to interpret their own time frame.

It's not an unreasonable argument that the inconvenience of the disconnection itself was sufficient to satisfy punishment for the accusation of infringement.

If course it could be argued that requiring any action at all was a violation of the due process clause in the 5th amendment. The RIAA is not the judiciary, and a DMCA notice is not a guilty verdict. Constitutionally only the judiciary has the power to determine guilt, outside of that all US citizens are presumed innocent. I think Cox is right that a rightscorp accusation was not sufficient proof of wrongdoing.

 

[rhouck]

Innocent until proven guilty. When did Cox fail to terminate the internet access of a known repeat copyright infringer after receiving a court order to do so that was created as part of a successful litigation action against the infringer that proved on a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that the individual was actually an infringer?

I agree with you that that should be the standard. The Judge does, however, address this argument and states why he does not believe that is the standard. He found that:

[C]ourts have articulated a knowledge standard: “A policy is unreasonable . . . if the service provider failed to respond when it had knowledge of the infringement.” . . . Thus, appropriate circumstances clearly cover account holders who repeatedly or flagrantly infringe copyright, particularly infringement of a willful and commercial nature

And the reality is that some of the emails from Cox employees are REALLY bad. They have emails where they admit that they know that individuals are actual infringers (and not just suspected), and that they don't care.

This is an unfortunate case where egregious facts may lead to bad law. Though there is still hope that it's just limited to ISPs who are dipshits and admit (and memorialize in writing) that they had the required "knowledge" that infringement was actually happening (and not just accusations). If Cox employees hadn't been so damn stupid to admit that they knew infringement was happening (which they really DON'T know for certain, they just SUSPECT), they wouldn't be having this issue now.

 

[TechLarry]

You don't even need a single infringer, guilty or otherwise, to prove an ISP hasn't initiated actions and or policies consistent with the law. In short, there is a law that tells Cox what they have to do if they find someone might be engaging in piracy. If Cox doesn't have policy in place and take actions based on that policy as prescribed by law, then Cox is taking their chances.

So... When did laws and punishments start applying to "Mights" ?

 

[Deleted member 126051]

it was interesting the part what Cox was doing for a little bit, when they got a DMCA take down they would disconnect the customer them but then at request they would reconnect them as a new customer (as they treated it as there job as done)

It's called DHCP.

MPAA: IP address 123.123.123.123 is stealz'in our stuffz! HIT HIM!
Cox: Okay.
Former IP 123.123.123.123: /ipconfig renew 123.123.123.132 Torrentz Awaaaaaaayyyyyy!

 

[lcpiper]

Such an action would violate due process. The government cannot force a company to take action against an individual that is merely accused by a third party to be in the wrong.

Umm, in denial?

Of course they can, they can and they do.

Besides, this case was civil law suite, not criminal proceeding. Take a step back and see the truth from a clear vantage.

 

[lcpiper]

So... When did laws and punishments start applying to "Mights" ?

When businesses are required by law to enact specific policies. When these policies are in the businesses' Terms of Use which users agree to. And when users violate those terms of use policies and the business is then sued by other businesses in civil court claiming damages due to a failure to adhere to Federal Law.

Internet provider Cox Communications is facing a lawsuit from BMG Rights Management which accuses the ISP of failing to terminate the accounts of subscribers who frequently pirate content.

Not a criminal case and not a case brought to court by the Government.

A Civil Case, do you understand the distinction?