Cox Communications Wins Order Overturning $1 Billion US Copyright Verdict (reuters.com) 42
Cox, the cable television and internet service provider, convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of several major record labels that had accused it of failing to curb user piracy, setting the stage for a new trial on the matter. From a report: The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia ruled on Tuesday that the amount of damages was not justified and that a federal district court should hold a new trial to determine the appropriate amount. A Virginia jury in 2019 found Cox, the largest unit of privately owned Cox Enterprises, liable for its customers' violations of over 10,000 copyrights belonging to labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group. More than 50 labels teamed up to sue Cox in 2018, in what was seen as a test of the obligations of internet service providers (ISPs) to thwart piracy.
Re: Xiden stole the 2020 election (Score:1)
There's a lot of projection trying to cover up the real Manchurian Candidate.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm an aspiring writer, and even though my stories are not great, I do feel like I could write a more believable evil villain [msn.com]. I can only assume that I am stuck in the metaverse, possibly in a coma, and I'm going to wake up in the mid-2000's with Ashton Kutcher telling me I've just been Punk'd.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the cheap labor "conservatives" in his party in Congress conspired with the Democrats to not fix the border. A better question, why does anyone bargain in good faith with the Democrats on this issue after the 1986 amnesty and its shortcomings?
Re: (Score:2)
why does anyone bargain in good faith with the Democrats on this issue after the 1986 amnesty and its shortcomings?
You mean the one Reagan signed that made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants?
Re: (Score:2)
Why didnâ(TM)t Trump fix the border during his tenure?
Because then he wouldn't have anyone to hire to work at his golf club
Section 230 (Score:2)
Cox doesn't have to police any traffic, and section 230 means that it isn't liable for user's traffic.
'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The labels accused Cox of failing to address thousands of infringement notices, cut off access for repeat infringers, or take reasonable measures to deter pirates.
As they would say on another (nefarious) discussion board; "Not your private army."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: 4chan getting neutered (Score:1)
Re:Section 230 (Score:4)
So is the theory that Cox should go after the individual but Cox has deeper, easier pockets?
Terminating an account has become untenable in the era where multiple people share accounts and each is required to have connectivity for government interaction (both adults and children).
Odds are most offenders, should it be proven, would be minors anyway.
Perhaps the Courts will rule on 2024 reality since the Legislature won't act on anything except war.
Eratta (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the Courts will rule on 2024 reality since the Legislature won't act on anything except war.
How did you feel about Iraq 2.0 and Afghanistan?
Re: (Score:3)
No, the theory is that Cox should have implemented a system to terminate repeat offenders, as required by DMCA, but shouldn't be assessed _quite_ that much in damages. Not sure why, as a billion dollars for 10k infringements is within the scope of statutory damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beats me. I'm not commenting on whether they actually had solid reason to know whether someone was a repeat offender, I'm just explaining my understanding of the reasoning behind the order overturning the billion dollar award.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the theory that Cox should go after the individual but Cox has deeper, easier pockets?
Terminating an account has become untenable in the era where multiple people share accounts and each is required to have connectivity for government interaction (both adults and children).
Odds are most offenders, should it be proven, would be minors anyway.
Perhaps the Courts will rule on 2024 reality since the Legislature won't act on anything except war.
Most countries dealt with the MAFIAA by doing two things.
1. Making it clear that a telco is not responsible for what the user does. The end user pays for bandwidth, the carrier provides it. End of and no they're also not permitted to divulge customer details on such a flimsy case as a screenshot of an IP as we have privacy laws.
2. No you cant sue people to make them scared of you. The legal system is not a means for standing over normal people who cant afford high priced lawyers. Speculative Invoicing
Re:Section 230 (Score:5, Informative)
Uh. No. Section 230 says that Cox won't be treated as the publisher. That doesn't help it with the copyright issues, which are governed by Section 512 of the Copyright Act (the DMCA). Under Section 512, an ISP isn't liable for the activities of its users if it implements a policy for terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. The claims against Cox were that Cox didn't actually implement that policy, so that liability shield (the "DMCA Safe Harbor") didn't apply to it.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds pretty bad. What if you are falsely accused? Do you get to appeal the account termination? Do you have to counter-sue the accuser?
In places where there is only one ISP to choose from, are you just kicked off the internet entirely?
lawsuits means no purchases (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the music industry started suing people I stopped buying new music. I will only buy used CDs, where there is still a resale market. Just try to resell digital music you've paid for. Don't want that album that U2 and Apple forced on you? Well, you cannot sell it. The music industry wants a lopsided deal where they keep all of the benefits of digital media to themselves and you pay for it all. I say No!
Re: (Score:3)
And yet millions more say yes, and the majority wins, your voice is silent in comparison, and you are only hurting yourself. Oh and "no one" cares.
Vote for laws, not with your wallet. No change will ever be made in corrupt capitalism. Big government is the only answer. (half sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody buys new CDs anymore. Younger people mostly just stream or pirate, and older people already have a collection.
I buy the odd CD from non-US, non-RIAA bands, but mostly go for stuff like clothing because I don't even own a CD player.
Re: (Score:3)
I gather that you're new to this but, the first lawsuits about this that I can remember was against cassette tapes and VCRs. In order for you to make a proper statement, you'll have to go back to LP records and video on film.
Maybe you get a thrill out of finding a pile of CDs at a thrift store but, even at $1/each, they're cruddy old physical media. You can't just ask for any song you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the film days, people used to point cameras at the TV screen. Some lost episodes of TV shows have been rediscovered on film made by pointing a camera at the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever wanted proof that the music industry stopped caring about anyone but themselves, look at the recent decision by Universal Music to pull their music from TikTok. That move has actually HURT Universal Music artists (who can no longer use TikTok to promote their music)
Individuals faced disproportionate damages (Score:2)
Back in the days when the goal was to spook consumers, preventing "piracy" (what a ludicrous, Orwellian word choice) by making an example of a handful of individuals, everyday people were suddenly crucified by media companies out of the blue.
I guess when you're a corporate entity you have the resources to make the argument that wildly disproportionate damages are not characteristic of a functioning system of justice. A single mom in Idaho can't stand up against Sony quite so much.
Don't copy that floppy! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those that can't afford it would not have been a sale anyway.
I'm not pro industry on this, but that is an oversimplification to the point of inaccurate. I get that you're not directly saying only poor people pirate. However, It's stated in a way that implies it. It does a disservice to your overall point when put forward like that. Your point about convenience, however, is a much stronger one.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point, but I can only say that it didn't imply that to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember - Guns don't kill people (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
COX didn't pirate the music - people did... Oh wait, I know how to make this stop, lets outlaw the Internet!!
You missed a beat in your logic-stream. We should outlaw people. People cause all crime, after all.