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

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

If we really wanting to stretch it ISP's could cite that what those parasites demand is eves-dropping which is pretty much illegal for civil companies. I still say that lowering downloads via brute force wont do any good. Either satisfy your buyers or face consequences(which will include "illegal" downloads like it or not).

 

So you are again arguing that a pirates demanding CR owners should just suck it up because they don't feel "satisfied" enough as a consumer.

 

 

What you just posted could simply be expressed as:

 

"Give me what I want or there will be consequences and I'll take your product anyway". 

[TechyBen]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

essentially yes.  Categorizing something a civil or criminal matter doesn't change the legality at all.   

Ok.

 

The thing is. We could be living in a world where cooking recipes are IP and protected by law with royalties whenever they were used. We could be living in a world where cooker makers, microwave producers and pots and pans fabricators are fined for allowing "breaking of IP law and distribution of cooking utensils". It would totally be as valid as musicians and filmmakers, novelists and artist being protected currently.

 

Society decided it was not the thing to do with recipes. So most of your comments about IP and theft and paying for a service are wrong. If we enter into a paid/agreed contract, then yes, we agree to that contract. We also live in a society/world where we are not isolated, so we cannot decide for ourselves what is a paid for service and what is a free one (rightly so, we should be asked to fit in with others decisions at times). Thus, we are in a world where it's right to pay musicians etc for their IP.

 

That may not though be a world where it is right for musicians/movie makers/novelists to fine people en mass for ip infringement for every infraction.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/26/2019 at 6:43 AM, Mooshi said:

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!

Just a ?   With these "subs" do you keep the music when you stop paying? 

 

Bonus ?  Do you keep the ability to listen to music that was taken off the service, even if you previously paid for it? 

 

...  Just looked it up .... 

 

The answer to this question is hilarious considering the context........... 

 

 

 

OT: I really think it's weird to say someone got "shafted"  more like justice served if you ask me.  Don't support pirates and you'll be fine,  seems easy enough. 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Ok.

 

The thing is. We could be living in a world where cooking recipes are IP and protected by law with royalties whenever they were used. We could be living in a world where cooker makers, microwave producers and pots and pans fabricators are fined for allowing "breaking of IP law and distribution of cooking utensils". It would totally be as valid as musicians and filmmakers, novelists and artist being protected currently.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.   I don;t think you understand IP or the laws that surround it.

 

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Society decided it was not the thing to do with recipes. So most of your comments about IP and theft and paying for a service are wrong. If we enter into a paid/agreed contract, then yes, we agree to that contract. We also live in a society/world where we are not isolated, so we cannot decide for ourselves what is a paid for service and what is a free one (rightly so, we should be asked to fit in with others decisions at times). Thus, we are in a world where it's right to pay musicians etc for their IP.

 

That may not though be a world where it is right for musicians/movie makers/novelists to fine people en mass for ip infringement for every infraction.

 

you tried that line of reasoning last time.  It doesn't work that way.  Having the ability to do something, or people doing something en mass does not make it legal.   The IP owners in this case did not agree nor permit anyone to download their content, no society can negate CR license/law just because it wants to, let alone one made up in your head. 

[TechyBen]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.   I don;t think you understand IP or the laws that surround it.

 

 

you tried that line of reasoning last time.  It doesn't work that way.  Having the ability to do something, or people doing something en mass does not make it legal.   The IP owners in this case did not agree nor permit anyone to download their content, no society can negate CR license/law just because it wants to, let alone one made up in your head. 

Huh? You just road block  me on that one?

 

Can you copyright a recipe? Why not? Why is a recipe not as important as any other IP? Why should chefs who invent recipes not get royalties as musicians do?

Quote

 It doesn't work that way.  Having the ability to do something, or people doing something en mass does not make it legal.  

Huh? I never said that. See my recipe example. Is it immoral for people not to be paying for recipe royalties? Is is wrong that chefs are not remunerated the same way musicians are? Is the law wrong there? Why is a recipe not theft, but music is?

Quote

no society can negate CR license/law just because it wants to

Yes it can. See recipes.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Huh? I never said that. See my recipe example. Is it immoral for people not to be paying for recipe royalties? Is is wrong that chefs are not remunerated the same way musicians are? Is the law wrong there? Why is a recipe not theft, but music is?

If they write and publish a recipe book then they do have Copyright over that work, otherwise how would you know the recipe? And recipes are already considered Intellectual Property on the provision that you treat it as that which requires you to protect it i.e. not publish it, or attempt to protect or you forfeit your right. Examples of this are Coca Cola, Pepsi and KFC.

 

Without the recipe everyone has the right of reproduction/imitation so long as you do not claim to be the original. You can imitate and try and get as close to KFC chicken on the one condition you do not say or imply it is KFC or like KFC.

 

Reproduction/imitation is fine and legal protected right under Fair Use, copying and counterfeiting is not. So in most instances it comes down to who and what you claim something is and if you give the required credit to the original Copyright owner. Problem here is we are confusing two very different things, Intellectual Property does not have Fair Use.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Huh? You just road block  me on that one?

 

Can you copyright a recipe? Why not? Why is a recipe not as important as any other IP? Why should chefs who invent recipes not get royalties as musicians do?

Yes you can CR a recipe.   It's not what you think, just like a musician cannot copyright a note or octave, a chef cannot copyright ingredients or amounts, but his recipe (instructions for cooking) is considered a literary piece and covered by most jurisdictions.

 

 

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Huh? I never said that. See my recipe example. Is it immoral for people not to be paying for recipe royalties? Is is wrong that chefs are not remunerated the same way musicians are? Is the law wrong there? Why is a recipe not theft, but music is?

Yes it can. See recipes.

You example is not a thing that changes anything I have said or the legitimacy of this case.   The problem you are having is that you are trying to apply CR law outside of IP and then claim it is flawed because it doesn't work.  Of course it doesn't work if you are going to try and copyright the use of a pan or the remuneration of specific people,  No CR law was every written to do that.  CR and IP law is their to protect a specific design of a pan, not the use of it, nor the wages of a a chef.    

 

A chef that is employed  is only entitled to wages, a musician that is employed is only entitled to wages, a chef that creates a piece of work that is protected by CR law is entitled to decide the licensing arrangements for said work just like a musician in the same situation. 

 

 

[jagdtigger]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you are again arguing that a pirates demanding CR owners should just suck it up because they don't feel "satisfied" enough as a consumer.

Yes, either serve the needs of your customer base or face losses. Its how business work, either accept it or dont start a business. End of story.

Edited January 2, 2020 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Yes, either serve the needs of your customer base or face losses. Its how business work, either accept it or dont start a business. End of story.

 

You really want to be so entitled that you feel you can demand a business sell you a product under your terms then threaten to steal their work if they don't?  If so then by all means, but don't for second fool yourself into thinking that is a legitimate market force.   That is just the spineless rant of a consumer grasping for an excuse to not pay for anything. 

 

 

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You really want to be so entitled that you feel you can demand a business sell you a product under your terms then threaten to steal their work if they don't?  If so then by all means, but don't for second fool yourself into thinking that is a legitimate market force.   That is just the spineless rant of a consumer grasping for an excuse to not pay for anything.

There are only two legal options when it comes to a good or a service, pay and receive or don't pay and don't receive. There is no third option titled don't pay and receive anyway.

 

Having a product or service consumers don't want to pay for is in no way ethically wrong and if that leads to loss of revenue that is their choice, the loss only coming from lack of sales not the unlawful acquiring of the good or service.

 

Businesses will go legal route against people doing something illegal against their business, if we want to do the 'end of story' grand standing.

 

It's pretty tiresome to keep hearing the rhetoric of people justifying law breaking with the intent to diminish the act so it becomes an accepted thing and something not shunned by society, that's all these "reasoning posts are". So much effort is put in to this act and I'm not naive to the fact it's working to an extent but in my view it's sad to see so many so easily throw out their morals just so they can have 'more things' with such disregard to the actual impacts of their actions. We aren't here today as things are just by the sole actions of the music industry.

 

And by no means are the music industry some white knight omnipotent entity doing what is best for artists and consumers, often far from it. But do we really need to have to fall back on the 5 year old two wrongs don't make a right lesson.

[TechyBen]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes you can CR a recipe.   It's not what you think, just like a musician cannot copyright a note or octave, a chef cannot copyright ingredients or amounts, but his recipe (instructions for cooking) is considered a literary piece and covered by most jurisdictions.

 

 

You example is not a thing that changes anything I have said or the legitimacy of this case.   The problem you are having is that you are trying to apply CR law outside of IP and then claim it is flawed because it doesn't work.  Of course it doesn't work if you are going to try and copyright the use of a pan or the remuneration of specific people,  No CR law was every written to do that.  CR and IP law is their to protect a specific design of a pan, not the use of it, nor the wages of a a chef.    

 

A chef that is employed  is only entitled to wages, a musician that is employed is only entitled to wages, a chef that creates a piece of work that is protected by CR law is entitled to decide the licensing arrangements for said work just like a musician in the same situation. 

 

 

Are you sure?

(First hit on Google, so apologies if a buzz piece)

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/03/24/recipes-copyright-and-plagiarism/

 

Once we know where to stand on this, then come back and tell me Music, or IP in general is some magical right, and not arbitrarily decided by society due to utility and desire to pay for our fellow person to eat for providing a *valued* service. And that society/law decides *what* services are valued and what ones are not.

 

So for example, as you say. Lists are not copyrightable. But how is a list of ingredients and the way to make the recipe, not the same as a list of musical notes, and how to play a song (or as another example, a list of subtitles, something also under current valid copyright)?

 

PS, that article also mentions another valid point. Fashion/clothes also don't fall under copyright. Why should a musician get special treatment and paid multiple times for a song, but a seamstress/suit maker not get paid multiple times when another bit of clothing is made or copied? Shouldn't we also be paying chefs and tailers in the millions in royalties and via tax/fines to those assisting in the piracy of food and clothing?

[jagdtigger]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

There is no third option titled don't pay and receive anyway.

That should be also true for "rightsholders". But for some reason they think its okay to put extra levy on empty media on the presumption that everyone downloads stuff.....

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Businesses will go legal route against people doing something illegal against their business

Except they wont. They go after the neutral utility provider(who in reality should have immunity because all they do is transfer packets without knowing what is in them) because its more profitable for them.

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Except they wont. They go after the neutral utility provider(who in reality should have immunity because all they do is transfer packets without knowing what is in them) because its more profitable for them.

They go through the only known path using court orders for supply of information, obstruction of justice is also illegal. ISPs are immune if they comply with the information request or cut service to the person committing the illegal act.

 

Immunity is only ever granted to those that cooperate.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Are you sure?

(First hit on Google, so apologies if a buzz piece)

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/03/24/recipes-copyright-and-plagiarism/

 

Once we know where to stand on this, then come back and tell me Music, or IP in general is some magical right, and not arbitrarily decided by society due to utility and desire to pay for our fellow person to eat for providing a *valued* service. And that society/law decides *what* services are valued and what ones are not.

 

So for example, as you say. Lists are not copyrightable. But how is a list of ingredients and the way to make the recipe, not the same as a list of musical notes, and how to play a song (or as another example, a list of subtitles, something also under current valid copyright)?

 

PS, that article also mentions another valid point. Fashion/clothes also don't fall under copyright. Why should a musician get special treatment and paid multiple times for a song, but a seamstress/suit maker not get paid multiple times when another bit of clothing is made or copied? Shouldn't we also be paying chefs and tailers in the millions in royalties and via tax/fines to those assisting in the piracy of food and clothing?

 

That article doesn't say what you think it does.      It actually says exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

 

From your article:

 

Quote

Copyright does not protect recipes, “That are mere listings of ingredients,” However, it can, “Extend to to substantial literary expression – a description, explanation, or illustration, for example – that accompanies a recipe or formula…”

 

What I said:

 

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes you can CR a recipe.   It's not what you think, just like a musician cannot copyright a note or octave, a chef cannot copyright ingredients or amounts, but his recipe (instructions for cooking) is considered a literary piece and covered by most jurisdictions.

 

 

They are the same.  Please, you clearly have no understanding of CR or IP at even a basic level.   To try and argue what you are is like arguing that because a square is a shape and a circle is a shape they both are the same but because a square is not a circle then niter should be considered shapes.   It makes no sense, CR is Ip, it applies to all creative works and processes. 

 

54 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

That should be also true for "rightsholders". But for some reason they think its okay to put extra levy on empty media on the presumption that everyone downloads stuff.....

Yes that happened, has been happening from a long time. But that "some reason" you like to make sound like it doesn't exist is piracy.  They were trying to circumvent piracy.  Is it unfair in that it costs innocent people? sure, but that is the price you pay when you have criminals running around making life difficult for everyone.  One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.   We all have to suffer because of people who break the law, guess what else you pay for because of criminals, higher prices for all your goods, every year retailers have to factor shop lifting loses into their prices.  So you pay more for food because someone else steals it,  now in some countries you pay more for blank media because other people are stealing music.    The root cause is theft and people like yourself promoting en ethically bankrupt activity like you are somehow entitled to other peoples work.

 

 

Quote

Except they wont. They go after the neutral utility provider(who in reality should have immunity because all they do is transfer packets without knowing what is in them) because its more profitable for them.

Not neutral,  They knew what was happening and allowed it to happen against court orders.   

[jagdtigger]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

They go through the only known path using court orders for supply of information, obstruction of justice is also illegal. ISPs are immune if they comply with the information request or cut service to the person committing the illegal act.

 

Immunity is only ever granted to those that cooperate.

Thats just a good sounding excuse for the lawsuit. Most ppl ignore notices and dont pay. So the industry turned its eye onto a more "juicy" victim...... (And also there is nothing in the ruling that says cox most disconnect previously """identified""" "infringing" customers , so its pretty clear they are doing it just for the money.)

Edited January 3, 2020 by jagdtigger

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Most ppl ignore notices and dont pay

Most people don't get legal notices because the Copyright holder has no idea who is infringing the Copyright. Those that do know the reality of the cost to actually pursue further and ignore.

 

This however has nothing to do with the immunity status of an ISP or their failure to comply with court orders.

 

Next time you receive a court order I suggest you try ignoring it, then come back to me with what happened to you.

[jagdtigger]

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Most people don't get legal notices because the Copyright holder has no idea who is infringing the Copyright. Those that do know the reality of the cost to actually pursue further and ignore.

 

This however has nothing to do with the immunity status of an ISP or their failure to comply with court orders.

 

Next time you receive a court order I suggest you try ignoring it, then come back to me with what happened to you.

AFAIK copyright notice is not a court order.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

AFAIK copyright notice is not a court order.

In the US such a thing is equivalent to, unlike most other countries that treat it as a civil misdemeanor unless you are distributing the US it's a constitutionally protected right. I don't know if you have noticed but those amendments hold great power over there. 

 

Quote

Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

Quote

A certificate of registration (or a rejection of an application for copyright) is a prerequisite for U.S. authors seeking to initiate a suit for copyright infringement in federal district court. See Circular 1 Copyright Basics, and sections 410, 411, and 412 of the copyright law.

If you receive a Statutory Infringement Notice that is a court document, hence court order.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In the US such a thing is equivalent to, unlike most other countries that treat it as a civil misdemeanor unless you are distributing the US it's a constitutionally protected right. I don't know if you have noticed but those amendments hold great power over there. 

 

 

If you receive a Statutory Infringement Notice that is a court document, hence court order.

 

Also the prevailing wisdom in the US is not to ignore those notices. 

 

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/846558/Copyright/Your+Company+Has+Received+A+Copyright+Infringement+Notice+Now+What

 

Here is a list of 10 things you should do when you receive a notice,  I see cox did basically the opposite and ignored them on 10,017 occasions. 

 

The most important one which is repeated several times throughout the article (which is written to help those who receive one, not to benefit those sending them) is this:

 

Quote

 

it is important to take the notice seriously.

...

Ignoring an infringement notice is not advisable. Failure to respond to the notice may result in a lawsuit. Damages for copyright infringement can include:

...

it is crucial that a copyright notice be taken seriously with careful consideration as to how to respond.

 

 

 

amongst other things like, investigate the notice, preserve the evidence and respond.  Which they did nothing of the sort.  There is just no way in hell this is a sloppy case resting on loose grounds.   The only petty excuses in all of this came from Cox who wants to pretend they have no responsibility and didn't do anything to protect themselves from legitimate lawsuits.

 

 To be honest, I don't understand the logic behind people thinking the music industry is being unfair.  If it were my work they were assisting to have stolen and were ignoring statutory notices from me I'd sue them too.  

 

 

 

 

 

[jagdtigger]

23 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In the US such a thing is equivalent to,

Then its a good thing i dont live there....   (And if i remember correctly there was an attempt by a copyright troll but they got thrown out because all they had was a list of IP addresses.....)

[TechyBen]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That article doesn't say what you think it does.      It actually says exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

 

From your article:

 

 

What I said:

 

 

They are the same.  Please, you clearly have no understanding of CR or IP at even a basic level.   To try and argue what you are is like arguing that because a square is a shape and a circle is a shape they both are the same but because a square is not a circle then niter should be considered shapes.   It makes no sense, CR is Ip, it applies to all creative works and processes. 

 

Yes that happened, has been happening from a long time. But that "some reason" you like to make sound like it doesn't exist is piracy.  They were trying to circumvent piracy.  Is it unfair in that it costs innocent people? sure, but that is the price you pay when you have criminals running around making life difficult for everyone.  One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.   We all have to suffer because of people who break the law, guess what else you pay for because of criminals, higher prices for all your goods, every year retailers have to factor shop lifting loses into their prices.  So you pay more for food because someone else steals it,  now in some countries you pay more for blank media because other people are stealing music.    The root cause is theft and people like yourself promoting en ethically bankrupt activity like you are somehow entitled to other peoples work.

 

 

Not neutral,  They knew what was happening and allowed it to happen against court orders.   

Then why are subtitles and music sheets still protected IP. As said. We protect musicians and actors, novelists etc. Why are we not protecting the IP of chefs and tailors to the same standard?

 

You seem to think it's about IP rights, and not about social agreements over wages and remuneration.

 

Quote

They are the same.  Please, you clearly have no understanding of CR or IP at even a basic level. 

I do. I am trying to show that there actually is different application to different social jobs/creations/histories. We *could* treat musicians the same as tailors and chefs. We don't, and elevate the artistic creation for some occupations above others legally. We *could* protect chefs and tailors as much as we do musicians and photographers. We don't though. Yet you say "using a service is stealing" if we don't pay. Have you paid chefs royalties for every cake you cooked?

 

Anyone copying a chefs cake recipe, but using their own ingredients, is not considered (as you say) "stealing a service and not paying for it", however, anyone copying a musicians music (as in playing their own instrument but the same notes) *is* considered by you to be stealing a service (and in law can be fined!). Even if this is just a list. Coding copyright is falling for this same problem. Is it a list or is it not? The courts are having trouble deciding. Yet, we allow  self performance of cooking a recipe at home and distributing cakes, but fine/DRM takedown someone performing music (not CD ripping!) themselves and distributing. The treatment by law, is not equal!

 

DRM takedowns are issued exactly on this case, new performances, that are made illegal by IP law, as in one media (music/art/film/writing) and not the other (recipes/clothing patterns/mathematics/and some other types of performance "dance" as an example).

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Then why are subtitles and music sheets still protected IP. As said. We protect musicians and actors, novelists etc. Why are we not protecting the IP of chefs and tailors to the same standard?

 

Because a musical piece of work is not the same as a list of ingredients.   A chef can trademark the design and appearance of food, in much the same way a musician copyrights the arrangement of notes to form his own music.  But as i said before a musician cannot CR notes.

 

 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

You seem to think it's about IP rights, and not about social agreements over wages and remuneration.

I don't seem to think that, I know it is about that. 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I do. I am trying to show that there actually is different application to different social jobs/creations/histories. We *could* treat musicians the same as tailors and chefs. We don't, and elevate the artistic creation for some occupations above others legally. We *could* protect chefs and tailors as much as we do musicians and photographers. We don't though. Yet you say "using a service is stealing" if we don't pay. Have you paid chefs royalties for every cake you cooked?

 

Anyone copying a chefs cake recipe, but using their own ingredients, is not considered (as you say) "stealing a service and not paying for it", however, anyone copying a musicians music (as in playing their own instrument but the same notes) *is* considered by you to be stealing a service (and in law can be fined!). Even if this is just a list. Coding copyright is falling for this same problem. Is it a list or is it not? The courts are having trouble deciding. Yet, we allow  self performance of cooking a recipe at home and distributing cakes, but fine/DRM takedown someone performing music (not CD ripping!) themselves and distributing. The treatment by law, is not equal!

If you understood you would understand why this is wrong.   You cannot open a restaurant and sell big macs and quarter pounders,  you can open a restaurant and sell hamburgers a chips,  you can open a shop and sell random notes on a sheet of music, but you cannot open a shop and sell a music composition written by someone else without their permission.

 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

DRM takedowns are issued exactly on this case, new performances, that are made illegal by IP law, as in one media (music/art/film/writing) and not the other (recipes/clothing patterns/mathematics/and some other types of performance "dance" as an example).

Because DRM = Digital millennium copyright act.  It is specifically to address copyright issues int he digital realm.  You cannot use law written specifically to address new digital issues to address IP issues that happen in a physical realm.  Also you cannot copyright math, the best you can do is copyright the a specific process that uses that math (just like you cannot copyright notes, just the process of arrangement). 

 

 

[Hoodsucker]

On 12/20/2019 at 8:38 AM, rcmaehl said:

As a man of good value ...

... or just cheap?   Happy 2020, rcmaehl.

[Reytime]

People still pirate nowadays? Everything has become so cheap and convenient. With all these subscription services offering every form of entertainment it almost seems like piracy just isn't worth the hassle.. anymore.

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, Reytime said:

Everything has become so cheap and convenient.

Problem is it didnt. By the time you add up all the subscriptions you will pay the same amount as you did for cable TV. Not to mention the BS limitations they impose  on their paying costumer base.