Sensing Blood In The Water, All Major Labels Sue Cox For 'Ignoring' Their DMCA Notices

from the copyright-trolling-showdown dept

For years, we've noted that the major record labels have been drooling over the idea that the DMCA might allow them to force ISPs to kick people entirely off the internet based on mere accusations of piracy. This is problematic for all sorts of reasons (as you might imagine). However, the record labels feared testing this idea in court, because it might not turn out the way they wanted it to. However, as we covered on Techdirt, a few years back, music publisher BMG, with the assistance of copyright trolling operation Rights Corp. went after ISP Cox, claiming that it had failed to kick people off under the DMCA.

That case was an utter mess, not helped at all by the fact that it was handled by Judge Liam O'Grady, who flat out mocked the idea that the internet was important, and made it clear he didn't see any issue at all with banning people from the internet. Here's how he responded to an attempt by the EFF to file an amicus brief pointing out the problems with kicking people off the internet:

I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical.

The whole case was a complete mess -- and it was made worse by some bad choices by Cox, including not really following its own stated DMCA repeat infringer policy. O'Grady's ruling was bad, and unfortunately the appeals court upheld it. However, at least the Appeals Court made it more or less clear that they weren't saying every ISP had to kick people off the internet -- but rather that Cox lost its DMCA safe harbors by not following its own DMCA policy. While much attention was paid to the claim that Cox's policy amounted to a "13 strike" policy before you might lose access, the appeals court notes it's not the number of strikes that matters, so much as whether or not the company follows its own policy -- and Cox did not.

Of course, another part that came out during the trial is that Cox was getting so completely bombarded by Rights Corp takedown notices (which doubled as demands for money), that Cox felt it needed to put in place systems to deal with the spam, which included limiting how many notices it would accept each day. Between the ruling in the original BMG case, and the revelations about Cox's own practices, the RIAA clearly sensed blood in the water, and a chance to prove its point. And, thus, it has a massive lawsuit against Cox. It's basically all of the major labels using the earlier case as evidence of some grand conspiracy to profit off of piracy.

Cox is one of the largest Internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the country. It markets and sells high-speed Internet services to consumers nationwide. Through the provision of those services, however, Cox also has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers, causing great harm to Plaintiffs, their recording artists and songwriters, and others whose livelihoods depend upon the lawful acquisition of music. Cox’s contribution to its subscribers’ infringement is both willful and extensive, and renders Cox equally liable. Indeed, for years, Cox deliberately refused to take reasonable measures to curb its customers from using its Internet services to infringe on others’ copyrights—even once Cox became aware of particular customers engaging in specific, repeated acts of infringement. Plaintiffs’ representatives (as well as others) sent hundreds of thousands of statutory infringement notices to Cox, under penalty of perjury, advising Cox of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Cox’s Internet service to illegally download, copy, and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted music through BitTorrent and other online file-sharing services. Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Cox unilaterally imposed an arbitrary cap on the number of infringement notices it would accept from copyright holders, thereby willfully blinding itself to any of its subscribers’ infringements that exceeded its “cap.”

Cox also claimed to have implemented a “thirteen-strike policy” before terminating service of repeat infringers but, in actuality, Cox never permanently terminated any subscribers. Instead, it lobbed “soft terminations” with virtually automatic reinstatement, or it simply did nothing at all. The reason for this is simple: rather than stop its subscribers’ unlawful activity, Cox prioritized its own profits over its legal obligations. Cox’s profits increased dramatically as a result of the massive infringement that it facilitated, yet Cox publicly told copyright holders that it needed to reduce the number of staff it had dedicated to anti-piracy for budget reasons.

Given the mess of how Cox handled DMCA notices and its repeat infringer policy, this case is going to be a tough one for it to fight off. But the actual stakes are huge. The RIAA wants to be able to kick people entirely off the internet based purely on accusations -- even if they're bullshit. We should be very concerned about it.

And to increase the level of concern: this new case has been assigned to... Judge Liam O'Grady. Needless to say we'll be watching it closely.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:55am

    "Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework."

    Because his son needed the internet to fill his tax stuff, to do virtually everything bank and govt related, to manage his medical data, to communicate with his/her colleagues at work, customers, to study etc etc.

    Yep, just like his son.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ShadowNinja (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      And to do shopping for a number of products like books, because the Internet put all non-Internet competitors out of business.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 10:04pm

      Re:

      Given how much schoolwork is online these days... That greatly undermines his own response...


      You could even argue it's hypocritical.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 4 Aug 2018 @ 3:11am

      Re:

      I wonder -- would His Dishonor consider an injunction against a person posting handbills on the town bulletin board in the town square to be a prior restraint of free speech?

      I suspect not. How on Earth does someone graduate from law school -- to say nothing of passing the bar or becoming a judge -- without even being aware that the Constitution exists?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:14am

    Someone needs to send Judge O'Grady to the public library where they teach those free "internet for the elderly" classes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wyrm (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:18am

    Also, Cox and other ISPs might not have helped their case during the Net Neutrality debate.

    Since they're saying that the content they push to their users is their own speech (they plead "first amendment rights" over what transits through their network), I assume they want responsibility for all the illegal content too. Right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carrie (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:26am

    Liam O'Grady was also the judge in Megaupload. It's like EDVA has decided that all copyright cases are related and should all go to him. It's an epic myopic game of "eh, how badly can one judge undermine free speech, the internet, copyright jurisprudence, and settled law?"

    Answer: Badly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:59am

      That's a disturbing coincidence.

      I don't know how judge selection works in Virginia. Does someone pay off someone else in order to choose a judge who's biased in their favor?

      Fortunately, the Dotcom case was such a quagmire that O'grady may never get an opportunity to adjudicate. Appropriate since it was way out of the jurisdiction of Virginia.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 1:29pm

        Re: That's a disturbing coincidence.

        Does someone pay off someone else in order to choose a judge who's biased in their favor?

        Or can they just have related companies file cases until they get a favorable judge, then amend one into the "real" case and drop all the others?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Diffy Runt, 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:30am

    Blood! Cox willingly ran into the buzz-saw!

    That they built over course of years, cutting off hunks and dangling them for bait.

    Read the filing, kids. With an open mind. I dare you to just this once read actual charges and then try to pooh-pooh.

    Cox has ALREADY LOST on major point of DMCA protection because FAILED to act in compliance with informings that they MUST have a plan for and actually take action on.

    By the way, that reads EXACTLY like I'd write it up if using my formal style, pointing out that businesses have responsibility and so on. -- As I've said several times: businesses are NOT persons, NOT free to do as wish without regard to law, which includes ENFORCEMENT. That's the deal laid out in DMCA, which Cox blatantly and intentionally dodged.

    Of course, Masnick's notion to save his feeble piratey face is that the courts yet again got it all wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:36am

      Re: Blood! Cox willingly ran into the buzz-saw!

      I'm clearly not understanding your post since you seem to be repeated what Mike wrote, while chastising him (or us?) for not reading it?
      COX screwed up their application of their internal process.
      How does this relate to them being a (or not being) a person?
      Are You a person, or are you a Sovereign Citizen?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:40am

      businesses have responsibility and so on

      What responsibility does a business have in regards to filing multiple DMCA claims at a pace that the party receiving those claims cannot answer at a similar pace? What responsibility does a business have in regards to filing false DMCA claims, knowingly or accidentally? What responsibility does a business have in regards to determining if usage of a copyrighted work falls under Fair Use before filing a DMCA claim?

      You do a lot of talking about businesses and corporations having responsibilities in answering DMCA claims. Perhaps, then, you can enlighten us as to the responsibilities they have in filing those claims.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chip, 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:49am

      Re: Blood! Cox willingly ran into the buzz-saw!

      So WHAT if "businesses" Run into BUZZSAWS! Businessed "should" BE allowed To run into "buzzsaws" IF they "want" And "let" the FREE "market" Decide!

      Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:58pm

      Re: Blood! Cox willingly ran into the buzz-saw!

      How can you possibly think its ok to kick someone off the internet due to allegations?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re: Blood! Cox willingly ran into the buzz-saw!

        If it's OK to kick someone off the internet due to allegations, then it should be OK to kick corporations off the internet due to a single person's allegations, shouldn't it?

        So I should be allowed to get Rightscorp kicked off the internet by alleging they repeatedly violated my copyrights, right?

        Methinks the issue has nothing to do with kicking people off the internet and everything to do with uneven compulsion by the courts based on the speaker, outside due process.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: Blood! Cox willingly ran into the buzz-saw!

        It is worse than kicking a person off of the Internet, it is kicking the whole household off the Internet because one person has been accused of piracy. The copyright holders are trying to terrorize people into not using the Internet for entertainment, less they be accused of piracy and get kicked off.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:49am

    What happened to the court ruling that said even convicted child molesters could not be kicked off the internet?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:01pm

      Re:

      The court ruled the government can't force you off the internet. The DMCA doesn't actually require account termination, so its not a government action. Cox, a private corporation, choose that remedy as part of its stated DMCA policies, which it failed to uphold.

      That's what I assume the logic is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Christenson, 5 Aug 2018 @ 11:52am

        What would a workable repeat infringer policy be???

        This is a serious question:
        Rightscorp/Prenda spamming DMCAs....
        No, you can't kick even child molesters off the net....nor iOT devices!
        If you just turn over names, you've allowed a spammer to get names for free...
        I think the answer might be a letter:

        Dear Subscriber: Your account seems to be ripe for a copyright lawsuit, and this is a serious possiblity.

        If there is a lawsuit alleging you are infringing, you will need to respond to a subpoena requesting your details.

        In the meantime, we recommend you stop the infringing activity on your account, which includes:
        <list>
        Measures you might take include:
        <list>

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 9 Aug 2018 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      Got a link to that ruling? It rings a faint bell, but I can't dredge up any specifics...

      I'm interested in the reasoning, because of the possibility that it might line up with a chain of logic I noticed recently based on the First Amendment.

      When the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on "the freedom... of the press", the "press" it refers to is not "people engaged in the business of reporting the news", but "the means of publication" - which, at the time, meant access to a literal, physical printing press.

      Over the course of time, new means of publication have become available, and it is my understanding that jurisprudence has accepted them as being covered by the "freedom of the press" clause of the First Amendment.

      In the modern day, the most meaningful and prevalent means of publication - to an even greater extent than the physical printing press ever was - is the Internet.

      On that basis, any law prohibiting someone from accessing the Internet would seem to be unconstitutional.

      At the very least, that argument could be made in court, with some chance of success - unless it's already been shot down by existing precedent, of course.

      If the ruling you cite is based on similar logic, that would seem to strengthen the position. If it's not, that would be interesting as well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:58am

    A Letter from 2020

    This might be a good time to point out once again, A Letter from 2020.

    I found this about two decades ago, 9/18,2000 on Slashdot. I did not write it. It seems to have disappeared from the intarweb tubes.

    Here it is as a previous TechDirt post:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140917/06061528548/only-surviving-recording-very-first-supe rbowl-is-because-fan-recorded-it-you-cant-see-it-because-copyright.shtml#c545

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      tp, 4 Aug 2018 @ 2:16am

      Re: A Letter from 2020

      > It seems to have disappeared from the intarweb tubes.

      old works are supposed to disappear completely to give room for fresh new works in the market.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        stephen.hutcheson@gmail.com, 4 Aug 2018 @ 1:25pm

        Re: Re: A Letter from 2020

        >>old works are supposed to disappear completely to give room for fresh new works in the market.

        That's just sick. Root-of-all-evil ninth-level-infernal. Rabid-mink-in-heat pathological. Chthulhu-adulating soul-sucking nililistic. Ugly and funny-dressing, too.

        In the last month I've watched performances of "King John" and "Love's Labour's Lost", read translations of the "Iliad" and "Enuma Elish", sung songs from 16th-century France and 18th-century New England--and they want to suck my culture dry for the sake of money that will perish with them! (May their deaths be as quick as is compatible with a long, painful, socially-abhorrent fatal decline.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2018 @ 9:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: A Letter from 2020

          That's just sick. Root-of-all-evil ninth-level-infernal. Rabid-mink-in-heat pathological. Chthulhu-adulating soul-sucking nililistic. Ugly and funny-dressing, too.

          Nah, that's just tp doing their usual, for the sake of your sanity it's best not to take them too seriously.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Smith, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:09pm

    So Visa is immune from lawsuit for processing transactions of pirated material (Perfect 10 v. Visa, 9th Cir), but a cable provider with many more legitimate uses than a piracy-money-moving service, isn't?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:18pm

      Re:

      Again, no. Its Cos's asinine decision to not abide by it's own stated policies which fell afoul of the DMCA.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        John Smith, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re:

        The RIAA may have outsmarted itself here. Even without the DMCA, cases involving dance halls playing pirated music were decided in favor of the "host."

        Even without the DMCA, they still have to prove that Cox met a standard they simply do not meet, that even Visa did not meet (and it was put on notice). The underlying notion is that Cox is not able to stop the piracy since there are other ways to reach it.

        By flooding Cox with DMCA notices, the RIAA greatly expanded what could be considered a "reasonable" response.

        I expect Cox to prevail here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Smith, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:18pm

    Even without the safe harbor, they should still be okay, since they don't meet the definition of vicarious or contributory infringement, at least as set forth in the cases against Visa (now made irrelevant by Bitcoin).

    Cox does not market itself as a piracy ISP. There are much worse actors out there who have escaped liability. While I think these users should be banned, and the ISPs held liable, that is not the law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 2:15pm

      Re:

      The problem at issue (at least in the original case) is that the DMCA requires an ISP to have a repeat infringe policy. Cox was one of the few companies to explicitly state a policy with an explicit sequence of events that would explicitly end in termination of an account. Then they failed to follow that explicit policy, and so were sued as violating the law in regards to having a policy. That case lost in court and on appeal. This lawsuit intends to sue on the same grounds. If you don't argue that set of facts, and understand the basis of the previous lawsuit, you likely shouldn't be trying to adjudicate the merits of the case.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:35pm

    Sigh, can they ( copyright/'AAs ) get any more repressive? It does not work, never has never will. First there was sneaker net, then IRC and Usenet, BBSs. OMG reel to reel tape recorders, cassette tapes, VHS, DVRs. EVERYTHING is a threat to their outdated business model. Go to the theater and spend a wad of money for some POS movie. Fork over your 1st born for that DVD that may have 1 or 2 decent cuts on it. Of course there are so many titles print/video/music that "aren't available" any more.

    The only reason they are after Cox is.......$$$$$. Big surprise there. They know that even if they get a judgement they will not collect enough to pay for the legal work. Unless someone owns their house or car free and clear there are no assets most people would have worth enough money to attach.

    They have a remedy under law. They can go to court and prove their case. They just want Cox and the other ISPs to do their work for them

    I am predicting that the next move is going to be a hard effort to ban all VPNs because someone MIGHT be d/l their "owned" property. You may need a letter from your employer to your ISP to justify using a VPN.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      They will never be able to ban all VPNs let alone get a letter from your employer to your ISP to justify using a VPN.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      tp, 3 Aug 2018 @ 11:28pm

      Re:

      > EVERYTHING is a threat to their outdated business model.

      Where else would these mansions come from? If these people are busy creating copyrighted works, they need to have enonugh money to buy the mansion with the money that is gathered while selling copyrighted works. If the mansion isn't appearing after all the hard work, then the rightsowners need to sue the people who they think caused the problem. This includes people who use VHS casettes, DVR's, pirates who freeload the content without paying for it, IRC, BBS's, tape recorders.

      You have to understand that if people spend their whole life doing something, there must be mansion or two as a result. You cannot declare that some work is less valuable than other works, simply because you don't like their business model.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 12:44pm

    'this new case has been assigned to... Judge Liam O'Grady'

    and of course, that happened out of pure chance!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    haha hehe hoho, 3 Aug 2018 @ 1:51pm

    13 strikes eh?

    OK pirates put all the crap into 13 files ya KNOW BIG ONES.....like a TB each after that i dont gve a rats ass about shit

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 2:01pm

    Most people need a driver’s license to get to work. But if they abuse their right to drive, they lose it.

    No reason why internet access shouldn’t be the same.

    If you want to keep your internet, don’t steal stuff. It’s really not that hard.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 2:13pm

      Re:

      The rest of the household can still drive, assuming that they have licenses, whereas if the Internet is cut off, the rest of the household suffers. Beside they accuse the account holder, while the infringer may have been a friend of one of their children, and the household still ends up without the Internet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 3:33pm

      Re:

      The internet has become a utility - the sooner you admit it the better you will feel.

      Your motor vehicle is not a utility - Duh.

      The internet is not the same as your motor vehicle - this should be obvious.

      Users should not be required to have a license in order to "operate" the internet. (snicker) Just like you do not need an ID to purchase groceries, you do not need an ID to use the internet.

      Get real

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2018 @ 12:43am

        Re: Re:

        you do not need an ID to use the internet.

        Oh, but you're going to need an ID Soon(TM).

        That's the easiest way to track everyone, disenfranchise people that the powers that be dislike, and charge you rent for everything forever. You can bet that real ID will be impelemented, and made mandatory. It's the simple solution to controlling ~95% of the population. The remaining ~5% are much more manageable when you can accuse them of felonous internet security tampering, and the other ~95% lose interest in their case.

        Get real

        You're the delusional one for believing that the general public is going to care enough about this issue to stop it. As long as they can access Facebook and watch Youtube, they won't lift a finger. Which is why those sites will be the last ones they choke to death.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 5:17pm

      Re:

      If you want to keep your internet, don’t steal stuff. It’s really not that hard.

      So maybe you should stop doing it then. I mean clearly you've been engaged in massive copyright infringement, and as such it's only a matter of time until you yourself are rightly cut off from the internet and all that that entails, so perhaps you shouldn't advocate for a policy that stands to hurt you?

      Now I know what you might say, 'I'm not engaged in any copyright infringement!', to which my response is 'Too bad, if accusation equals guilt is the standard you are willing to accept, then mere accusation is enough to kick you off for what you are clearly doing.'

      The parasites are not demanding that actual infringers be given the boot because they almost never get to that point, they are demanding that accused infringers lose access, and if that is seen as acceptable to you that says a lot more about you and what you considered acceptable collateral damage in the 'war' to 'protect copyright' than it does any accused infringer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2018 @ 4:32am

      Re:

      If you want to keep your copyright laws, don't abuse them. It's really not that hard.

      But then if not for all the children you sued, you wouldn't be buying more yachts, would you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 2:02pm

    Most people need a driver’s license to get to work. But if they abuse their right to drive, they lose it.

    No reason why internet access shouldn’t be the same.

    If you want to keep your internet, don’t steal stuff. It’s really not that hard.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 5:30pm

    "Tell you what..."

    I suspect there would be a deafening silence if an ISP told them they'd be happy to consider kicking people off of their service if the labels can provide court rulings establishing guilt of the alleged infringer. You know, evidence of guilt rather than merely accusation.

    (Well, deafening silence as far as what was presented to the ISP, the labels would undoubtedly run to their pet legislators to whine about how unreasonable the ISP was being, demanding evidence of guilt rather than just taking their word as fact.)

    If they actually had to do some work themselves rather than just flinging accusations with the accuracy of a drunk coke-fiend it would likely be a lot less fun for them, and as such not something they'd be terribly interested in.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      tp, 4 Aug 2018 @ 12:22am

      Re: "Tell you what..."

      > You know, evidence of guilt rather than merely accusation.

      If gathering proper evidence takes half year per customer, and cox has 2 million customers, the operation is going to take half year * 2 million, which is 1 million years of hard work. Since you can't expect cox customers to gather the evidence, how are you planning to do the actual work for the operation you propose?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2018 @ 4:07am

        Re: Re: "Tell you what..."

        how are you planning to do the actual work for the operation you propose?

        That is the copyright holders problem, and if it is not economic to do, they should stop trying to force everybody else to spend money to try and do what they cannot do.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2018 @ 6:23pm

    Cox is already facing cord cutters. If they kick internet subscribers off their network they might start hearing calls competition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 8:30pm

    Next up, spammers sue people for ignoring their emails calls, and mail.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Aug 2018 @ 8:45pm

    Perhaps it is time to stop pretending that age gives wisdom.
    He doesn't understand the internet, refuses to learn, and this should preclude him from ruling in cases about it.

    Imagine what would happen if Judges who heard cases about police brutality had themselves been on the receiving end of their gentle ministrations & flat out lying on reports & in testimony.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jono793 (profile), 4 Aug 2018 @ 6:46am

    It's worth pointing out:

    ...Cox really didn't help itself in this case.

    The "thirteen strike" policy was a rule on paper only, as pointed out by the article.

    But in addition to that, the appeal court pointed out that Cox wasn't processing __Any__ of the notices that Rights Corp sent to it. They apparently took umbrage with the wording of the notices (which included "settlement agreements"). Rights Corp continued to send them unaltered. So Cox started filing all their notices straight to the recycling bin!

    I might have issues with a lawyer. But if I get a valid legal notice from said lawyer, and decided to ignore it because they're an asshole, or they don't wash, I shouldn't be surprised if the court to takes a dim view.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2018 @ 11:49am

      'Fetch me the atomic microscope, I need the violin!'

      They apparently took umbrage with the wording of the notices (which included "settlement agreements"). Rights Corp continued to send them unaltered. So Cox started filing all their notices straight to the recycling bin!

      So Cox refused to be complicit in a good old extor- I mean 'copyright enforcement' system run by parasitic liars with a history involving a novel interpretation of the first amendment and a willingness to lie in the 'settlement offers' they send out?

      I'm sorry, what part of that was Cox supposed to be blamed rather than praised for?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 5 Aug 2018 @ 12:08pm

      Re: It's worth pointing out:

      Starts auto-generating "legal" infringement notices at almost no cost to me...from my hacked Techdirt logs, the expensive part!

      Now Cox is supposed to respond to every one of them??? At what cost to them???

      The part cox screwed up is not thinking through what to write in their policy for when the facts aren't clear and the sources are SPAM, or to adapt the written policy when their actions got out of synch with it. Classic, normal corporate behavior.

      The policy should have demanded that a lawsuit actually be filed before they lifted a finger. (Well, they could have forwarded a form letter they wrote with the SPAM filings). And they should have demanded a settlement that included termination before they did any termination.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jay Z, 4 Aug 2018 @ 11:43am

    Try and get the Judge to recuse himself

    And make the record for your eventual appeal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 6 Aug 2018 @ 12:23pm

    New three-celtillion-strikes policy in effect:
    Every report results in one strike.
    One report per second limit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 6 Aug 2018 @ 12:23pm

    New three-centillion-strikes policy in effect:
    Every report results in one strike.
    One report per second limit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.