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

[rcmaehl]

Sources:
Variety
Billboard (quote source)
The Verge

 

Summary:

A Jury has awarded the music industry including Sony, Universal, Warner, and EMI for failure to terminate repeat copyright infringers.

Media:

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

Cox Communications was found liable for the piracy infringement... by a U.S. District Court jury in Virgina on Thursday (Dec. 19), awarding $1 billion statutory damages to plaintiffs Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and EMI. The labels and their publishing entities filed the lawsuit in July 2018, accusing the cable and internet service provider of turning a blind eye to pirates on its network. They alleged that Cox “deliberately refused to take reasonable measures” to combat copyright infringers, even after the company became aware of specific acts of infringement by its customers. Cox was also accused of imposing an “arbitrary cap” on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders. Cox was found guilty of infringment claims on 10,017 pieces of work...and fined $99,830.29 per work.  “Today’s victory on behalf of music publishers and record labels who own over 10,000 copyrights is a clear message to ISPs like Cox" said National Music Publishers Association president. “The jury found that Cox was liable for its subscribers’ infringement to the tune of $1 billion dollars which serves as a warning to those who willingly turn a blind eye and enable their users to share music illegally. Cox received hundreds of thousands of notices of infringement and did not adequately respond or comply with its obligations to stop its subscribers from infringing on peer to peer networks." Cox also released a statement to Billboard: “We are disappointed in the court’s decision. The amount is unjust and excessive. We plan to appeal the case and vigorously defend ourselves. We provide customers with a powerful tool that connects to a world full of content and information. Unfortunately, some customers have chosen to use that connection for wrongful activity. We don’t condone it, we educate on it and we do our best to help curb it, but we shouldn’t be held responsible for the bad actions of others.” Over the past several years, record labels and publishers have grown increasingly diligent about targeting ISPs in an attempt to squelch copyright infringement. In March, more than 50 music companies filed suit against Charter Communications -- which does business under the name Spectrum. Since 2017, Texas-based ISP Grande Communications has been engaged in a legal tussle with the RIAA, which has similarly accused that company of failing to crack down on copyright pirates.

 
My Thoughts:
Big Yikes. Looks like Cox's refusal to terminate customers over copyright infringement has really come to bite them. 

[williamcll]

I have already forgotten what kind of business cox do.

[rcmaehl]

1 minute ago, williamcll said:

I have already forgotten what kind of business cox do.

They do ISP business

[PlayStation 2]

Why hasn't copyright law been rewritten? Oh right, because corporations own copyright law.

[Fasauceome]

The perfect topic title

[themaniac]

When I read the title I thought it was about Jesse Cox and was so confused and pissed

[The1Dickens]

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.

[PhantomJaguarr]

Uh oh. That's my ISP. Hope I keep my 49.99 a month for 150mbps for another year. Wonder how much more aggressive they'll be when monitoring those who use their service ..

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, 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.

Oh, that's actually the point, but this is also just the District Court. This'll be years before it's finally settled.

 

As a note, since this matters to LMG and the general forum, Viacom brought a similar suit against Google back in the early 2010s. Viacom eventually settled with Google and no money changed hands. That's why YT acts the way it does.

 

As for the Cox case, it looks like they ignored legitimate requests from externally found users, so the case isn't without merit. I figure they'll eventually win, but it's interesting none the less. I feel a VPN ad placement should be attached at the end here.

[rcmaehl]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I feel a VPN ad placement should be attached at the end here.

Piracy is wrong. You definitely should not look into which VPNs do not keep user data and that contest subpoenas on forums such as r/privacy on reddit. You definitely should not in any way shape or form pirate content, It is immoral and usually illegal. As a man of good value, I personally do not use a VPN. Once again, you should not use a VPN.

[pas008]

16 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Piracy is wrong. You definitely should not look into which VPNs do not keep user data and that contest subpoenas on forums such as r/privacy on reddit. You definitely should not in any way shape or form pirate content, It is immoral and usually illegal. As a man of good value, I personally do not use a VPN. Once again, you should not use a VPN.

piracy is wrong yes

but privacy is right and not using vpn will let many comanies have your data not just select few

so vpn should be used

[Donut417]

21 minutes ago, pas008 said:

vpn should be used

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. 
 

 

[pas008]

Just now, 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. 
 

 

of course some services wont because they want your data so they can track data

but then that is your choice from using said service thats why i stated select few

not everyone on everything

[The1Dickens]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

 

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. 

This sounds just outright illegal. If an ISP provides your information to anyone, is that not a breach of privacy? They should only provide your private information to law enforcement in response to a warrant, and shouldn't then be handed off to a private party for any purpose.

 

54 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

As for the Cox case, it looks like they ignored legitimate requests from externally found users, so the case isn't without merit. I figure they'll eventually win, but it's interesting none the less.

As bad as Cox is, RIAA just saying "terminate this customer's contract because we suspect them of piracy" is wrong. If they have evidence, they should go through the whole legal process. This is punishment without a trial. And because Cox didn't comply, they are now being sued for being complicit, or worse, primarily responsible? If they have any evidence on specific individuals, enough that they presented it to Cox with the request to terminate an account, they have enough to take that individual to trial, win, and have some limit placed on their future computer use.

 

The RIAA absolutely should not win this. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[JZStudios]

58 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Piracy is wrong. You definitely should not look into which VPNs do not keep user data and that contest subpoenas on forums such as r/privacy on reddit. You definitely should not in any way shape or form pirate content, It is immoral and usually illegal. As a man of good value, I personally do not use a VPN. Once again, you should not use a VPN.

The only things I pirate are dead games you can't actually buy anymore, like Deadpool, Driver San Francisco, Dirt, etc.

[JZStudios]

1 minute ago, The1Dickens said:

The RIAA absolutely should not win this. Unless I'm missing something.

They shouldn't win it because they're a bunch of shitheads that screw over the actual music producers and the end users. They're like a pimp using crack and debt to keep the hookers in indentured servitude forever.

[sazrocks]

Well crap, Cox is my ISP. While they have their own fair share of bad practices (price creep, high prices, data caps), they are still among the better ISPs out there. Until now they don’t really throttle or block P2P traffic or VPNs. They also don’t block excessive numbers of ports (port 80 incoming is blocked but that’s about all that matters). 
 

I fear that this will change...

 

Good thing I have a VPN to my linode VPS which has speeds in excess of 700mbps...

[BuckGup]

3 hours ago, williamcll said:

I have already forgotten what kind of business cox do.

Scamming consumers for subpar shit internet 

[RGProductions]

When Cox gets shafted 

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

This sounds just outright illegal. If an ISP provides your information to anyone, is that not a breach of privacy? They should only provide your private information to law enforcement in response to a warrant, and shouldn't then be handed off to a private party for any purpose.

Not illegal when a subpoena is involved. Trust me your better off letting the copy right holder have it. US federal law states that piracy is up to 5 years in prison and or a $250,000 or maybe it’s a $500,000 fine. Most of the time copy right holders will settle for thousands. 

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, pas008 said:

can track data

No it’s so services like Netflix can stay with in the law. Because when they buy rights to a piece of media they generally have to pay for the rights in each region they want to stream it in. Because people were using VPNs to circumvent those restrictions, Netflix and other services had to actively stop those users, or face penalties from rights holders. 

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, RGProductions said:

When Cox gets shafted 

It’s kinda nice that they get the shaft for once. Maybe one day Comcast will get the shaft. The most Comcast ever got was the tip. LOL.  

[SeriousDad69]

I don't think this is really that big of a deal. VPNs are already so cheap and easy to use that if someone has enough knowledge to install and use a bittorrent client they can probably figure out how to use a VPN.

I know no one trusts NordVPN these days, but you can usually get a three year subscription for $100-$130, which is cheap compared to paying $10-$20 each for albums and $10+ dollars each a month for various streaming services.

[TetraSky]

And this just sets a dangerous precedent, basically saying the ISP is liable for what their customers do online... Expect more surveillance, website blocking and what not from ISPs in the US, to protect their asses.

This is what happens when you have old people in power that think the internet is just a series of tube and can barely even operate a flip phone, in charge of new technology.

[Founders]

5 hours ago, WhiteJaguar77 said:

Uh oh. That's my ISP. Hope I keep my 49.99 a month for 150mbps for another year. Wonder how much more aggressive they'll be when monitoring those who use their service ..

It's a safe bet things will change for you and not for the better. Big business ignores idle threats but when lawsuits start affecting their bottom line changes take place and the customer always pays the price in the end. Hopefully you have an alternative available in your area. Many people don't have an alternative due to the monopolistic way some regions are broken up into zones specific to certain ISP's.