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

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, 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!

Even if people don't want to pay the sub, use the ad based version, small royalties are better than nothing and is it really that painful that people can't suffer a 15 sec ad?

[jagdtigger]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

people can't suffer a 15 sec ad?

Most ppl (including me) are just sick of ads.....  Plus tbere is the iasue with fragmentation too.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Most ppl (including me) are just sick of ads.....  Plus tbere is the iasue with fragmentation too.

 

Then pay for the service. 

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Then pay for the service. 

Did you even read the second sentence?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Did you even read the second sentence?

Yes. 

 

If you don't like ads then buy your music outright. If you don't want to do that then allow streaming services to pay for it with ads.  In this day and age there is no reason to justify music piracy, just weak excuses.  

 

 

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes. 

 

If you don't like ads then buy your music outright. If you don't want to do that then allow streaming services to pay for it with ads.  In this day and age there is no reason to justify music piracy, just weak excuses.  

Youtube (+ adblocker) if you really don't want pay.... like that is an option, unless you're out camping in the middle of nowhere but you'd know ahead of time and surely have better things to do. Few things are not on Youtube and if they aren't then it's even more likely they need your money and should pay for it, but then most new artists today use Youtube to get discovered so... what isn't on Youtube...

[Loote]

Fragmentation as in, not everything is on Spotify. The most ambitious collectors would have to get all subscriptions and even them it's not even close to what was available on what.cd. Not everything can be bought either.

 

Overall this is ridiculous, for me this kind of a situation is like Quadrillion dollars fine for a state because it didn't set up devices to measure travel time everywhere to make it impossible to go over limit and  there are 10,017 places where people were found to go over the limit by someone/some company. I think the possibility of life loss is million times more expensive than sharing a song, thus million times higher price.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, Loote said:

Fragmentation as in, not everything is on Spotify. The most ambitious collectors would have to get all subscriptions and even them it's not even close to what was available on what.cd. Not everything can be bought either.

Not everyone had the storage space to buy every song ever from every artist you liked or might like, the desire to have everything is more the problem than having to either buy the song in different places or have more than one music subscription.

 

People got by just fine only buying the music they really wanted, music collections were small, and used radio for the rest. The equivalent option today is vastly superior in what you are able to obtain and exponentially better in terms of how you can store that music. And you can still listen to music you don't own legally for free if you so wish.

 

The desire to have everything is no different or worse than the corporate wish to capitalize on assets they own, what "you want" is just as strong as their desire to get money for it, one isn't greater than the other. So as much as people rage and complain about things you are better off today and the corporate entities that get complained about are just as annoyed as the people complaining.

 

Change is most often slow, what we have today won't be the same in 10-20 years and it's still the desires of the consumers that has the largest influence over these larger spans of time. If the majority are not happy with how things are then it will change, nothing ever stays the same forever.

 

Edit:

Also buying music today is way, way, way cheaper than it was back in CD era.

[Loote]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not everyone had the storage space to buy every song ever from every artist you liked or might like, the desire to have everything is more the problem than having to either buy the song in different places or have more than one music subscription.

 

People got by just fine only buying the music they really wanted, music collections were small, and used radio for the rest. The equivalent option today is vastly superior in what you are able to obtain and exponentially better in terms of how you can store that music. And you can still listen to music you don't own legally for free if you so wish.

 

The desire to having is not different or worse than the corporate wish to capitalize on assets they own, what "you want" is just as strong as their desire to get money for it, one isn't greater than the other. So as much as people rage and complain about things you are better off today and the corporate entities that get complained about are just as annoyed as the people complaining.

 

Change is most often slow, what we have today won't be the same in 10-20 years and it's still the desires of the consumers that has the largest influence over these larger spans of time. If the majority are not happy with how things are then it will change, nothing ever stays the same forever.

100% true, one thing I'm sad about, most of my old youtube playlists with music have 50% of the content blocked and some of the smaller studios did take down their stuff, but never made their own channels(or a channel got suspended because of copyright claims on 20% of their stuff, but the remaining 80% is gone too with no one to upload it)

It is better, even good, but I'm afraid it's going to get worse, however, I myself get by listening to music on yt premium on my phone, most of it shouldn't be on yt, which makes it as bad as downloading stuff, but it works, I only loose 1-2 songs/week and they mostly get reuploaded.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes. 

 

If you don't like ads then buy your music outright. If you don't want to do that then allow streaming services to pay for it with ads.  In this day and age there is no reason to justify music piracy, just weak excuses.  

 

 

And this day and age there is no excuse to have a witch hunt under the false pretense of defending creativity., when in reality they are just looking for an easy money-grab. If they really cared about that they wouldnt restrict access to stuff to maximize their profits, period.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Loote said:

Fragmentation as in, not everything is on Spotify. The most ambitious collectors would have to get all subscriptions and even them it's not even close to what was available on what.cd. Not everything can be bought either.

 

Overall this is ridiculous, for me this kind of a situation is like Quadrillion dollars fine for a state because it didn't set up devices to measure travel time everywhere to make it impossible to go over limit and  there are 10,017 places where people were found to go over the limit by someone/some company. I think the possibility of life loss is million times more expensive than sharing a song, thus million times higher price.

As consumers we have it so much better and cheaper and more accessible than ever before,  and somehow people are trying to argue it as a new reason to pirate.  All I see are people grasping at straws to justify their desire not to pay what is literally pennies for music. 

 

8 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

And this day and age there is no excuse to have a witch hunt under the false pretense of defending creativity., when in reality they are just looking for an easy money-grab. If they really cared about that they wouldnt restrict access to stuff to maximize their profits, period.

And there we go,  you can't argue the piracy bit so you are going to try and make it look like some shonky lawsuit money grab.  Forget the fact that the company actually broke laws in allowing it's customers to do the same resulting in theft.  Yes It is "theft", it is literally defined as IP theft in US law.    

 

It just astounds me how entitled people are with the excuses they use. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Youtube (+ adblocker) if you really don't want pay.... like that is an option, unless you're out camping in the middle of nowhere but you'd know ahead of time and surely have better things to do. Few things are not on Youtube and if they aren't then it's even more likely they need your money and should pay for it, but then most new artists today use Youtube to get discovered so... what isn't on Youtube...

For the most part it is up to the artist what they put on youtube, spotify, apple etc.  Artists restricting their own products from being monetized on said platforms is their own problem and does not make pirating their work legitimate or right.   

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

For the most part it is up to the artist what they put on youtube, spotify, apple etc.  Artists restricting their own products from being monetized on said platforms is their own problem and does not make pirating their work legitimate or right.   

Well I was meaning the official YouTube channels for them, it's pretty rare not to have one.

[TechyBen]

On 12/28/2019 at 2:21 AM, leadeater said:

Well I was meaning the official YouTube channels for them, it's pretty rare not to have one.

Even those get copyright strikes. Even the music owners cannot manage their own ownership without copyright fights coming up.

 

Buuuuut "illegal, you're all scum". And certainly not an unworkable unreasonable system of distribution. 

[Loote]

On 12/28/2019 at 12:25 AM, mr moose said:

the company actually broke laws in allowing it's customers to do the same resulting in theft. 

I can't agree with this. I'm used to ISP forwarding its customers to the police only when they have a warrant, no throttling or forwarding the user contact data. I understand it might not be how it is in the US where the industry's lobby is the most powerful, but I simply can't agree with such world-view. I'll provide some examples from my country why I am biased against such things:
It usually begins when police receives a report containing a list of IP numbers, timestamps and some sort of justification.

at this point depending on people handling it and more exact circumstances:
-police indiscriminately confiscated few thousand PCs, which sometimes were the only source of income for their owner, after many months of research, they find proof on less than 1% of the computers, that is due to two things - people deleting stuff and the methods used to collect the IP numbers. There were multiple cases of this kind, but mostly instead of 1% guilty you read that after 2 years they checked 12 out of 3 thousand PCs, or that after 3 years there's still no conclusion. Luckily this way of handling things is coming to an end, police found out that they haven't got enough staff and that it's a waste of resources.

-police commander told them to fuck off unless they document how they collected those IP numbers thoroughly
-a court case starts, the suitor gains the contact data of the defendants and sends out warnings like 'settle for $200 or else', many people settle, but actually most of those cases end with no fines.

 

Thus, in my eyes, Cox should be responding only to the police asking them for data, some private company saying one of their clients is a bad boy shouldn't be grounds to do anything, but it either is, or the expensive lawyers managed to mislead the jury.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Loote said:

I can't agree with this. I'm used to ISP forwarding its customers to the police only when they have a warrant, no throttling or forwarding the user contact data. I understand it might not be how it is in the US where the industry's lobby is the most powerful, but I simply can't agree with such world-view. I'll provide some examples from my country why I am biased against such things:
It usually begins when police receives a report containing a list of IP numbers, timestamps and some sort of justification.

at this point depending on people handling it and more exact circumstances:
-police indiscriminately confiscated few thousand PCs, which sometimes were the only source of income for their owner, after many months of research, they find proof on less than 1% of the computers, that is due to two things - people deleting stuff and the methods used to collect the IP numbers. There were multiple cases of this kind, but mostly instead of 1% guilty you read that after 2 years they checked 12 out of 3 thousand PCs, or that after 3 years there's still no conclusion. Luckily this way of handling things is coming to an end, police found out that they haven't got enough staff and that it's a waste of resources.

-police commander told them to fuck off unless they document how they collected those IP numbers thoroughly
-a court case starts, the suitor gains the contact data of the defendants and sends out warnings like 'settle for $200 or else', many people settle, but actually most of those cases end with no fines.

 

Thus, in my eyes, Cox should be responding only to the police asking them for data, some private company saying one of their clients is a bad boy shouldn't be grounds to do anything, but it either is, or the expensive lawyers managed to mislead the jury.

 

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, under US law an ISP is responsible when it does not do enough to prevent it's users from using it's network to break the law.  

 

If you read through all the articles you'll see the appropriate channels were used, cox were duly notified of everything in a timely manner throughout the process.  They refused to follow legal procedure and this is the end result.

 

 

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, Loote said:

Thus, in my eyes, Cox should be responding only to the police asking them for data

Police don't always get involved in IP and Copyright cases so the assumption of it should be the police is not correct because most often it is done through the courts, a subpoena is issued by the courts not the Police and Cox was ignoring those so what do you expect to happen when you ignore court orders?

[Anomnomnomaly]

On 12/20/2019 at 4:38 PM, 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.

Downloading content is not an illegal act in most western countries, it's a civil act of copyright infringement that can only be punished with fines and not a criminal conviction... Uploading content on the other hand 'is' a criminal act.

 

Here in the UK as far as I am aware, no one has really been pursued or found guilty of downloading some music/movies/games... only uploading them and profiting from those actions.  Same can be said for those selling android type tv boxes preloaded with apps to access infringing content.

 

Notice that I have not used the 'piracy' word once (until now) to describe the act of copyright infringement... this is because the term is one invented entirely by the media industry to make out that the act is worse than it is... it's not stealing anything, because that requires you to take a physical copy of something and deprive the owner of it... All you are doing is creating a digital copy of some one else's copyrighted work.

 

So.. not a criminal act, a civil one... and as others have mentioned... you should not do such a thing, it would make you a very naughty boy and you'd not be allowed out to play... and even if you did, I'm sure you'd ensure you used protection such as a VPN that didn't log anything... Because you people are SMRT... I mean S M A R T.

 

 

Bonus points if you get all of the pop culture references... the prize is a lower level of sarcastic response for 24hrs. 

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

Downloading content is not an illegal act in most western countries, it's a civil act of copyright infringement that can only be punished with fines and not a criminal conviction... Uploading content on the other hand 'is' a criminal act.

 

Here in the UK as far as I am aware, no one has really been pursued or found guilty of downloading some music/movies/games... only uploading them and profiting from those actions.  Same can be said for those selling android type tv boxes preloaded with apps to access infringing content.

 

Notice that I have not used the 'piracy' word once (until now) to describe the act of copyright infringement... this is because the term is one invented entirely by the media industry to make out that the act is worse than it is... it's not stealing anything, because that requires you to take a physical copy of something and deprive the owner of it... All you are doing is creating a digital copy of some one else's copyrighted work.

 

So.. not a criminal act, a civil one... and as others have mentioned... you should not do such a thing, it would make you a very naughty boy and you'd not be allowed out to play... and even if you did, I'm sure you'd ensure you used protection such as a VPN that didn't log anything... Because you people are SMRT... I mean S M A R T.

 

 

Bonus points if you get all of the pop culture references... the prize is a lower level of sarcastic response for 24hrs. 

It is stealing, piracy is not a word coined buy media companies in a PR effort.   

 

The concept that it is not stealing was some rando on the internet trying to justify his illegal actions by twisting the common definitions of words to try and negate the existing legal realities. 

 

IP theft:

 

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft

 

 

[Anomnomnomaly]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

It is stealing, piracy is not a word coined buy media companies in a PR effort.   

 

The concept that it is not stealing was some rando on the internet trying to justify his illegal actions by twisting the common definitions of words to try and negate the existing legal realities. 

 

IP theft:

 

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft

 

 

Definitions can vary from country to country... here in the UK downloading and infringing copyright is a civil offence and not a criminal one. It only becomes a criminal act if you upload and/or profit from that infringement. So downloading, burning to a dvd/bluray and selling them... criminal, downloading and watching it... civil.

 

I clearly stated that I was referring to the UK, so applying a US definition to my comment is disingenuous.

[leadeater]

49 minutes ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

Definitions can vary from country to country... here in the UK downloading and infringing copyright is a civil offence and not a criminal one. It only becomes a criminal act if you upload and/or profit from that infringement. So downloading, burning to a dvd/bluray and selling them... criminal, downloading and watching it... civil.

 

I clearly stated that I was referring to the UK, so applying a US definition to my comment is disingenuous.

Well all this is really doing is trying to bring in criminal law versus civil law, either case it's illegal as defined by law. The only real differentiation here is whether a person is pursued through the court system or charged by the police, law was still broken in both situations so only the type of stick used to hit the infringing person is different.

 

Just because it's a civil case doesn't make it not illegal. If it were not illegal the courts would have no grounds for damages.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

Definitions can vary from country to country... here in the UK downloading and infringing copyright is a civil offence and not a criminal one. It only becomes a criminal act if you upload and/or profit from that infringement. So downloading, burning to a dvd/bluray and selling them... criminal, downloading and watching it... civil.

 

I clearly stated that I was referring to the UK, so applying a US definition to my comment is disingenuous.

 

As below, it seems you are trying to trivialize the issue by conflating different components of the legal system.   It is no less illegal just because it is a civil case.  Imagine if we applied that logic to Intel when they engaged in anti trust against AMD.  Are we to just say, well that's okay because it was a civil case and they didn't actually break the law? 

Illegal is illegal, and the only reason cox git sued and lost was because of illegal activity. 

 

EDIT: also the case is in the US under us law and those definitions are generally held true for most countries.   Unless you want to argue the Chinese are not stealing IP, they are merely an infraction on a civil issue.

 

 

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well all this is really doing is trying to bring in criminal law versus civil law, either case it's illegal as defined by law. The only real differentiation here is whether a person is pursued through the court system or charged by the police, law was still broken in both situations so only the type of stick used to hit the infringing person is different.

 

Just because it's a civil case doesn't make it not illegal. If it were not illegal the courts would have no grounds for damages.

I was going to edit my post to reflect that, however I thought it was obvious that one is not lesser than the other.  

 

 

[TechyBen]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

As below, it seems you are trying to trivialize the issue by conflating different components of the legal system.   It is no less illegal just because it is a civil case.  Imagine if we applied that logic to Intel when they engaged in anti trust against AMD.  Are we to just say, well that's okay because it was a civil case and they didn't actually break the law? 

Illegal is illegal, and the only reason cox git sued and lost was because of illegal activity. 

 

EDIT: also the case is in the US under us law and those definitions are generally held true for most countries.   Unless you want to argue the Chinese are not stealing IP, they are merely an infraction on a civil issue.

 

 

I was going to edit my post to reflect that, however I thought it was obvious that one is not lesser than the other.  

 

 

Really? So if someone wants to pursue a civil case against "they said nasty things about me", this is entirely as illegal as any other law?

 

[jagdtigger]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well all this is really doing is trying to bring in criminal law versus civil law, either case it's illegal as defined by law. The only real differentiation here is whether a person is pursued through the court system or charged by the police, law was still broken in both situations so only the type of stick used to hit the infringing person is different.

 

Just because it's a civil case doesn't make it not illegal. If it were not illegal the courts would have no grounds for damages.

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).

Edited January 1, 2020 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Really? So if someone wants to pursue a civil case against "they said nasty things about me", this is entirely as illegal as any other law?

 

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