Cox gets massively shafted - Jury awards music industry 1 billion dollars from Cox over copyright infringers

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

There is lots of work I don't get paid for. There are lots of people who only get paid for 1 or at the time work, and not repeat royalties. They are entirely a social decision to support or not to support. As far as I know, most musicians get very well supported.

 

I'm a cleaner. If someone walks mud on the floor, should I sue them and send them to jail? Or just drop them as a customer? As a musician, be great and amazing. Don't let cronies and knee breakers make you think you need to break windows if you're a double glazing salesperson.

Your analogy doesn't work. 

 

If you aren't getting paid then don't do the work.   Your choice to work for free doesn't give you the right to demand others do. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

At what point do you put fines on/in prison the road builder or car manufactures for "criminals" using those services?

Roads and cars all have regulations and laws that govern how and who they can be used and have enforcement of those (police & DMV etc). Without these transportation and motor vehicles just will not work, not unless you want mad max style carnage.

 

There is such a thing as criminal negligence, while this doesn't really apply to ISP's it is a good analogy for what they are failing to do, negligent in their duty of care over the service they are duty bound to govern. It's no better than warrant of fitness testing centers issuing cars with compliance when in reality they should not pass, this can be done because they want to do the person a favor, keep good rep because repair cost would be high (discontent assignment to something not actually responsible for) or just outright accepting a bribe. NZTA here is responsible for ensuring this does not happen, they do actually check these and inspect, no blind trust.

 

A car maker would be fined if they sold a "totally don't use this car for bank robberies because it's had the limiter removed and bullet resistant glass and panels edition" and sold it for cheap, knowing buyers are going to use it for that. Most of the time selling something to a person knowing it will be used for a crime is a crime. Selling a blow torch is not a crime, selling a blow torch to someone asking if it can cut through a bank safe and directing them to one that can without reporting or refusing the sale can be a crime.

 

Once you know a customer is using the service or product you provide/sell for a crime and you take no action you can be liable, negligence can be a crime.

[jagdtigger]

On 12/20/2019 at 5:38 PM, rcmaehl said:

Piracy is wrong

We aint living in the digital world so nothing is purely good and purely wrong/bad. All i will say that piracy is a result of the media industry's incompetence and ostrich policy....

[TechyBen]

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Roads and cars all have regulations and laws that govern how and who they can be used and have enforcement of those (police & DMV etc). Without these transportation and motor vehicles just will not work, not unless you want mad max style carnage.

 

There is such a thing as criminal negligence, while this doesn't really apply to ISP's it is a good analogy for what they are failing to do, negligent in their duty of care over the service they are duty bound to govern. It's no better than warrant of fitness testing centers issuing cars with compliance when in reality they should not pass, this can be done because they want to do the person a favor, keep good rep because repair cost would be high (discontent assignment to something not actually responsible for) or just outright accepting a bribe. NZTA here is responsible for ensuring this does not happen, they do actually check these and inspect, no blind trust.

 

A car maker would be fined if they sold a "totally don't use this car for bank robberies because it's had the limiter removed and bullet resistant glass and panels edition" and sold it for cheap, knowing buyers are going to use it for that. Most of the time selling something to a person knowing it will be used for a crime is a crime. Selling a blow torch is not a crime, selling a blow torch to someone asking if it can cut through a bank safe and directing them to one that can without reporting or refusing the sale can be a crime.

 

Once you know a customer is using the service or product you provide/sell for a crime and you take no action you can be liable, negligence can be a crime.

Oh. I agree. But, the same could be said FOR the road companies. They should stop people taking trucks of pirated CDs right? Or does the police/contraband units do the tracking etc. Or do we ask every road, house owner, etc to record and report each other?

 

No easy solution. It just seems this current approach, is nukes to kill fleas. As with the musicians, I'd say concentrate on finding the best solution to prevent Piracy, not the easiest or most obvious solution. (Many do, so to see some getting all tied up in legalities and fights over it is sad...)

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Your analogy doesn't work. 

 

If you aren't getting paid then don't do the work.   Your choice to work for free doesn't give you the right to demand others do. 

Wait. Then how does that apply to musicians? We can classify anything as a service, then classify anyone as not paying for it, thus stealing.

As said. Not saying it's right or wrong. But, musicians can concentrate on getting the most out of their paying customer relationships... or chase those who don't pay. I know which I'd prefer to do, and which would be the nicer community to be a part of.

 

Likewise, when I've done small jobs, I've looked for those whom seem to be able and wish to pay. Could I make it big with venture capitol and a kickstarter and it all fail/get no payment? Totally. Big risks and big rewards. But does that mean musicians/actors/copyright holders who are risking millions, should have no risk and only rewards? It's hard to say where the right balance is, in responsibility and right to both service and "deprivation" (am I depriving a farmer the right to work by growing my own potatoes? Or a novelist by reading my friends copy of a book? Etc etc).

[descendency]

On 12/20/2019 at 12:21 PM, Donut417 said:

The issue with VPNs is not all services support them. Netflix activity blocks them for example. Also it causes slightly higher data usage. For us with caps that come very near the threshold, VPNs just don’t work for us. 
 

My guess is Cox was not being cooperative. Most of the time copy right holders will have ISPs forward letters to users. In some cases they will ask for user info and sue them directly. 
 

 

The other issue with VPNs are that from you to the VPN endpoint can be tracked by the ISP.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, descendency said:

The other issue with VPNs are that from you to the VPN endpoint can be tracked by the ISP.

That doesn’t matter as they can’t read any of the data. The NSA also has this ability. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Oh. I agree. But, the same could be said FOR the road companies.

No because road companies have nothing to do with anything other than making sure the road is compliant with the spec required, same as a builder. You can only be held to account for the thing you are responsible for, which in the case of the ISP's is to actually do something with subpoenas and warrants and they themselves also control the use of their services where as road builders are not. Road builders are not the police.

 

So the same cannot be said.

 

You can never stop all road crimes but that's an extremely poor excuse so say don't try and we certainly do not expect the police to do literally nothing.

[Snadzies]

That 1 billion will almost assuredly be significantly reduced on appeal.

I'd bet it gets knocked down to the millions, maybe a few tens of millions at most.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

 

Wait. Then how does that apply to musicians? We can classify anything as a service, then classify anyone as not paying for it, thus stealing.

It's so obvious why it doesn't work,  you can't compare a cleaning job that has to be done every time something gets dirty to a  musicians job.   They spend a solid time in a studio and outlay 100's of thousands of dollars to make an album and you think you they shouldn't be paid for it.    Either buy the album and listen to it as many times as you want or stream it and pay constantly for it.   You don't get to demand a service should be free.

 

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

As said. Not saying it's right or wrong. But, musicians can concentrate on getting the most out of their paying customer relationships... or chase those who don't pay. I know which I'd prefer to do, and which would be the nicer community to be a part of.

They are entitled to both,  your opinion on what they should do only applies to you if you are ever in that position.  You have no right to tell other people what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own IP they worked to produce.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Likewise, when I've done small jobs, I've looked for those whom seem to be able and wish to pay. Could I make it big with venture capitol and a kickstarter and it all fail/get no payment? Totally. Big risks and big rewards. But does that mean musicians/actors/copyright holders who are risking millions, should have no risk and only rewards? It's hard to say where the right balance is, in responsibility and right to both service and "deprivation" (am I depriving a farmer the right to work by growing my own potatoes? Or a novelist by reading my friends copy of a book? Etc etc).

Again, that has nothing to do with this.  You are conflating risk with rights. you can't do that.  If anyone invests in a product and then someone illegally takes all the revenue away from that product, you are entitled to seek compensation,  you can't just say it was a risk suck it up. 

 

[jagdtigger]

I wonder why ISP's dont have the same immunity as postal services have.....

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I wonder why ISP's dont have the same immunity as postal services have.....

Depends on what you mean by Postal service. Here in the US, postal services are provided by the government and Private businesses. BUT its a regualted industry. Meaning there are regualtions for shipping diffrent things. For example we have to label boxes with aerosols when we package them at the job. Same thing with anything with a lithium ion battery. Because the carriers have to handle those packages with care. Plus there are resticitions on batteries on planes and such. 

 

ISP's are not regulated. Remember the FCC gave up Title II, so effectlive they can do what ever the fuck they want. 

[jagdtigger]

18 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Depends on what you mean by Postal service.

What i mean is they cannot be held liable say for a letter containing anthrax and the like.....

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

letter containing anthrax and the like.....

Well generally letters for us come USPS (Goverment), so yeah, the government is not going to hold itself liable. 

[mr moose]

45 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I wonder why ISP's dont have the same immunity as postal services have.....

Because they are completely different situations.  The postal service has no way of knowing what is in your mail or package because it is illegal to open another persons mail.  You cannot get into trouble for something you have no knowledge of.  That is why the sender has to sign a declaration that the package contains no dangerous chemicals etc, because the postal service will just deliver it as normal mail and the responsibility for the contents is now on the sender.  In this situation the ISP was told that their service was enabling an illegal activity and they did nothing.  The closest the postal service comes to this is if a customs or police dog sniffs out cocaine and the postal service refuses to let the police take the package and delivers it anyway.    And the closest an ISP comes to postal service style immunity is if the client is using a VPN and there is no way the ISP can differentiate the content.

 

 

[TechyBen]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

They spend a solid time in a studio and outlay 100's of thousands of dollars to make an album and you think you they shouldn't be paid for it.    Either buy the album and listen to it as many times as you want or stream it and pay constantly for it.   You don't get to demand a service should be free.

 

I never said that. I said, not everyone pays for a service they don't want. Also, I can work 100s of hours at a task. Am I allowed to demand payment for it? Or should I work with the community and find what they are willing to pay?

Are we really so childish we act like this is a one way street? And miss it's a consumer/worker relationship?

 

Quote

 

They are entitled to both,  your opinion on what they should do only applies to you if you are ever in that position.  You have no right to tell other people what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own IP they worked to produce.

Again, that has nothing to do with this.  You are conflating risk with rights. you can't do that.  If anyone invests in a product and then someone illegally takes all the revenue away from that product, you are entitled to seek compensation,  you can't just say it was a risk suck it up. 

And, are they telling me what I should do? They can do what they like. But I can see two camps. Those who fight for every IP iota of datum to their death. And those who let it fly and get on with their life.

 

Which group do you think I observe is happy?

 

Quote

  If anyone invests in a product and then someone illegally takes all the revenue away from that product, you are entitled to seek compensation,  you can't just say it was a risk suck it up. 

I can. Sometimes things in life are out of our control. I can try and shout at the wind/rain, or I can learn to work around it. Do you really think I should chase every single picture I ever drew for the copyright? As an example, how has Linus responded to the memes? How does he respond to the reposts? Is he balanced, or does he throw sueballs to everyone? Which is the less stressful and (apparently) more economically sound response? Should he up or lower his lawyer game?

[TechyBen]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because they are completely different situations.  The postal service has no way of knowing what is in your mail or package because it is illegal to open another persons mail.  You cannot get into trouble for something you have no knowledge of.  That is why the sender has to sign a declaration that the package contains no dangerous chemicals etc, because the postal service will just deliver it as normal mail and the responsibility for the contents is now on the sender.  In this situation the ISP was told that their service was enabling an illegal activity and they did nothing.  The closest the postal service comes to this is if a customs or police dog sniffs out cocaine and the postal service refuses to let the police take the package and delivers it anyway.    And the closest an ISP comes to postal service style immunity is if the client is using a VPN and there is no way the ISP can differentiate the content.

 

 

Imports and exports do get checked and ceased though. But if you are not sending boxes of DVDs, it's hard to say a letter infringes copyright.

 

[Animal901]

Use something like ghostery if you don't want to use a vpn. It's better than nothing. Really if you visit all the gross websites nobody will look at what you did.

[Curufinwe_wins]

On 12/20/2019 at 10:21 AM, The1Dickens said:

Call me paranoid, but I have a feeling this will result in a stronger push to track and log every step end-users take online, making VPNs all but illegal.

Absolutely that's my concern as well.

[Curufinwe_wins]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because they are completely different situations.  The postal service has no way of knowing what is in your mail or package because it is illegal to open another persons mail.  You cannot get into trouble for something you have no knowledge of.  That is why the sender has to sign a declaration that the package contains no dangerous chemicals etc, because the postal service will just deliver it as normal mail and the responsibility for the contents is now on the sender.  In this situation the ISP was told that their service was enabling an illegal activity and they did nothing.  The closest the postal service comes to this is if a customs or police dog sniffs out cocaine and the postal service refuses to let the police take the package and delivers it anyway.    And the closest an ISP comes to postal service style immunity is if the client is using a VPN and there is no way the ISP can differentiate the content.

 

 

Though honestly the same situation should be occurring. ISPs shouldnt be monitoring and monitizing every last bit of traffic for the exact same reason it is illegal to open someone's mail.

 

Also from a pure grounds of consequentialism, all that harder crackdowns on media consumption piracy (single-user/non-distribution/non-monitized) do is reduce demand for the overall product. As the music and gaming industries have found already. Though that doesn't stop people from trying to take every cent they can today ofc.

 

It's a special situation as well because OTA/Free music services exist so incredibly ubiquitously and have for sooo long, and people have long since gotten used to just being able to get it whenever, and pay only for stuff they really like. Or you know... concerts.

 

(I say that as a floatplane supporter, as a very common theatre goer, etc)

[jagdtigger]

41 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

all that harder crackdowns on media consumption piracy (single-user/non-distribution/non-monitized) do is reduce demand for the overall product

Yeah, its impossible to control the uncontrollable but they still keep on trying an failing at it....

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I never said that. I said, not everyone pays for a service they don't want.

If you don't want to pay for your music then don't listen to it.  If you want to listen to music then you don;t have the right to demand it for free.  To be honest I am not sure why you think saying that makes a lick of difference to the rights of artists?

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Also, I can work 100s of hours at a task. Am I allowed to demand payment for it?

Again, yes, if no one is willing to pay you then don't work.  I find it alarming you think it is alright for you to expect payment for work you do but that an artist shouldn't.

 

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

 

Or should I work with the community and find what they are willing to pay?

Are we really so childish we act like this is a one way street? And miss it's a consumer/worker relationship?

It is a one way street,  you as the consumer don't get to decide anything other than do I pay for it or not. If the answer is no then you have no right to use the product,  If the artist prices himself out of work then that is his problem,  you don't get to use his work and then use his price as an excuse not to pay.

 

 

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

And, are they telling me what I should do? They can do what they like. But I can see two camps. Those who fight for every IP iota of datum to their death. And those who let it fly and get on with their life.

And that is solely for each IP owner to decide.  You don't get to decide for them what they do with their IP.  Only they have that right.

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Which group do you think I observe is happy?

I don't care, nor do the IP owners who want to defend their own IP from misuse.  

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I can. Sometimes things in life are out of our control. I can try and shout at the wind/rain, or I can learn to work around it. Do you really think I should chase every single picture I ever drew for the copyright? As an example, how has Linus responded to the memes? How does he respond to the reposts? Is he balanced, or does he throw sueballs to everyone? Which is the less stressful and (apparently) more economically sound response? Should he up or lower his lawyer game?

Again, how you observe people and their actions does not dictate their rights.  Why can't you see this?  IP is a property, it is owned by the creator.  You are literally trying to argue that because some people like to give away their IP that everyone should.  It doesn't work that way, if they want to charge a stupid high amount then sue anyone who takes it but doesn't pay then that is their right, their legally option, their choice.    You have an awful lot to learn about property ownership and rights.  Not liking someone or how they act does not change those rights or the validity of them.

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Imports and exports do get checked and ceased though. But if you are not sending boxes of DVDs, it's hard to say a letter infringes copyright.

 

That's customs not the postal service, they are different entities.

 

3 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Though honestly the same situation should be occurring. ISPs shouldnt be monitoring and monitizing every last bit of traffic for the exact same reason it is illegal to open someone's mail.

 

that is something I am a proponent for,  I can't see it ever happening but I agree, ISP's should be banned from logging content (meta data (in the form of IP address and time accessed) I am happy with), but not content and then they should be absolved like the postal service.

3 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Also from a pure grounds of consequentialism, all that harder crackdowns on media consumption piracy (single-user/non-distribution/non-monitized) do is reduce demand for the overall product. As the music and gaming industries have found already. Though that doesn't stop people from trying to take every cent they can today ofc.

 

It's a special situation as well because OTA/Free music services exist so incredibly ubiquitously and have for sooo long, and people have long since gotten used to just being able to get it whenever, and pay only for stuff they really like. Or you know... concerts.

 

(I say that as a floatplane supporter, as a very common theatre goer, etc)

 

A lot of OTA services pay decent royalties which is why they have been around for so long and why the music industry never talks about it other than in a positive way (sometimes negative from the artist, but that is for different reasons).

 

 

[TechyBen]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:34 PM, mr moose said:

If you don't want to pay for your music then don't listen to it. 

 

Exactly! Music is a luxury, everyone (theoretically) could decide not to listen to it one day. What would your musicians/artist do then? If a farmer cannot sell their food, they can at least eat their food.

Quote

If you want to listen to music then you don;t have the right to demand it for free. 

I did not. But I can make my own art/content for "free", of my own time. I don't demand other people pay me for my own musings/hobbies. *IF* they wish to engage with me in a contract of work and sale, then I do.

 

Quote

To be honest I am not sure why you think saying that makes a lick of difference to the rights of artists?

Again, yes, if no one is willing to pay you then don't work.

It does make a difference to the artist. They can fret and worry about forcing an economy, or work with the one that does exist (many economies are "fake", in that they are forced, monopolies/fake dependencies etc).

Quote

  I find it alarming you think it is alright for you to expect payment for work you do but that an artist shouldn't.

Hahahahaha. I never said I do. I said, I do both work comparable to an artist, and work different for them. Both may be paid for, but only one is a "single payment" type work. Take for example a music concert. That *can* be enforced, no payment, no entry. However, should they then charge anyone within earshot of the concert? Under certain social arrangements (laws/copyright etc), some would enforce and charge the neighbours of the concert hall for "stealing the content".

 

Thus, balance is needed is all I'm suggesting. Yet you seem to extrapolate that to "you're suggesting the sky is falling", or I suggest to steal and leave artists poor and without food.

 

What I'm trying to say is, music/art/etc are types of socially agreed payments. As everyone can make music/art, and thus it's true utility value is zero. There is no real supply and demand, the supply is infinite, and the demand can vary likewise, from zero to infinite.

 

The price likewise can vary from free (many do give it away) to the most expensive silver bunny ever (https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/723888420/jeff-koons-rabbit-fetches-91-million-auction-record-for-work-by-living-artist?t=1577270697061 ). It would be *LUDICRUS*, for as you mention, every artist to insist their work is worth the same. Could everyone charge $91 million per piece of work also? Right? Though Personally, I could consider every artist and their work worth that! Yet you still turn around and accuse me of undervaluing their work?

 

Quote

It is a one way street,  you as the consumer don't get to decide anything other than do I pay for it or not.

And with that, I am unable to consider any more of the topic. As no business/consumer/seller agreement is a one way street. You don't get to smash my windows in and say "it's a service, pay up!"

You don't get to insist food is more expensive than I can afford and leave me to starve (if say someone is disabled). We put more value on individuals and their communities than on an economic profit margin.

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Exactly! Music is a luxury, everyone (theoretically) could decide not to listen to it one day. What would your musicians/artist do then? If a farmer cannot sell their food, they can at least eat their food.

I did not. But I can make my own art/content for "free", of my own time. I don't demand other people pay me for my own musings/hobbies. *IF* they wish to engage with me in a contract of work and sale, then I do.

 

Now you are talking about completely different things from when you started.  If people stop listening to music then it will die as an industry just like every other industry that makes things people stop using.  That in and of itself does not make copyright laws, conditions or entitlements any less legitimate.

 

40 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It does make a difference to the artist. They can fret and worry about forcing an economy, or work with the one that does exist (many economies are "fake", in that they are forced, monopolies/fake dependencies etc).

They are not forcing any economy.  They are trying to operate in a market that gets heavily devalued through piracy.  Why you would even try to argue they have any control over that is confusing.

 

40 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Hahahahaha. I never said I do. I said, I do both work comparable to an artist, and work different for them. Both may be paid for, but only one is a "single payment" type work. Take for example a music concert. That *can* be enforced, no payment, no entry. However, should they then charge anyone within earshot of the concert? Under certain social arrangements (laws/copyright etc), some would enforce and charge the neighbours of the concert hall for "stealing the content".

 

40 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Thus, balance is needed is all I'm suggesting. Yet you seem to extrapolate that to "you're suggesting the sky is falling", or I suggest to steal and leave artists poor and without food.

 

What I'm trying to say is, music/art/etc are types of socially agreed payments. As everyone can make music/art, and thus it's true utility value is zero. There is no real supply and demand, the supply is infinite, and the demand can vary likewise, from zero to infinite.

 

The price likewise can vary from free (many do give it away) to the most expensive silver bunny ever (https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/723888420/jeff-koons-rabbit-fetches-91-million-auction-record-for-work-by-living-artist?t=1577270697061 ). It would be *LUDICRUS*, for as you mention, every artist to insist their work is worth the same. Could everyone charge $91 million per piece of work also? Right? Though Personally, I could consider every artist and their work worth that! Yet you still turn around and accuse me of undervaluing their work?

 

And with that, I am unable to consider any more of the topic. As no business/consumer/seller agreement is a one way street. You don't get to smash my windows in and say "it's a service, pay up!"

You don't get to insist food is more expensive than I can afford and leave me to starve (if say someone is disabled). We put more value on individuals and their communities than on an economic profit margin.

 

You started in this discussion saying:

Quote

 

There is lots of work I don't get paid for. There are lots of people who only get paid for 1 or at the time work, and not repeat royalties. They are entirely a social decision to support or not to support. As far as I know, most musicians get very well supported.

 

I'm a cleaner. If someone walks mud on the floor, should I sue them and send them to jail? Or just drop them as a customer? As a musician, be great and amazing. Don't let cronies and knee breakers make you think you need to break windows if you're a double glazing salesperson.

 

Now you are trying to argue you didn't really say that but that the economy of musicians is some "social agreement".  It isn't that,  it's a commercial venture and when an artists dictates the terms of use of their product that is it. You not liking it does not make it a social agreement or optional condition.  Musicians are entitled to sue anyone who's actions result in their work being used without their permission.  PERIOD.

 

 

 

[Mooshi]

People still take that rickety ship out to sea?

 

With music subs being cheap, I haven't had a need to hoist the Jolly Roger in years!