Insanity (AKA Copyright Statutory Damages) Rules: Cox Hit With $1 Billion (With A B) Jury Verdict For Failing To Magically Stop Piracy

from the oh-come-on dept

We've highlighted the many problems with the various lawsuits against Cox Communications arguing that the company should be held liable for failing to wave a magic wand and stop all piracy from occurring on its service. The internet access provider was originally sued by music publisher BMG, and they got a judge who made it clear that he was not a fan of the internet, and didn't see why it should be a problem for anyone to be kicked off the internet at all. Cox lost the case mostly because the company didn't really follow its own internal repeat infringer policy. That ruling was upheld on appeal, leading the company to settle the case for $25 million.

Sensing an opportunity to cash in, all of the RIAA major record labels jumped in to sue Cox as well -- and got the same exact judge, Liam O'Grady. After a trial earlier this month, a jury has now awarded an absolutely astounding $1 billion damages verdict. The verdict is so preposterous and so disconnected from reality, that the math is wrong. The jury verdict document said that each infringed work should lead to statutory damages to the tune of $99,830.29. And there were 10,017 works infringed. And thus, the total was $1 billion on the dot:

Except that if you multiply those two numbers, the total would actually be $1,000,000,014.93. The jury's bad math saved Cox just about $15. Small favors.

Anyway, Cox has already made it clear that it will appeal, and I'd be stunned of such an amount held up. Everything about this is (1) crazy and (2) demonstrative of just how messed up and broken the "statutory damages" set up is for copyright. We've long wondered why statutory damages are even a thing in copyright, because they really don't make any sense. But the fact that statutory damages can go as high as $150k per work infringed -- even if there were literally no actual damages, raises significant 5th Amendment issues about due process (specifically, the wholly arbitrary nature of the jury award) and whether or not the award is "obviously unreasonable."

In a Supreme Court ruling almost exactly 100 years ago (St. Louis v. Williams), the Supreme Court ruled about obviously unreasonable awards, noting that there's a problem when "the penalty is 'arbitrary and unreasonable, and not proportionate to the actual damages sustained.'" That certainly seems to be the case here. After all, a basic recounting of the facts seems important here. Yes, Cox did not adequately follow its own repeat infringer policy, which may have lost it its DMCA safe harbors, but a jury verdict of over $30,000 per work infringed requires the jury to say that each and every infringement was willful by Cox. And that's crazy. Fucking up your own policies doesn't mean that you willfully infringed on every single work that someone shared via your network. Indeed, Cox was actually one of the more aggressive internet access providers in kicking people off for infringing.

Just to put this in perspective, the entire RIAA made just under $10 billion in 2018 in the US. IFPI reported that the total globally was $19.1 billion. And they want to now say that piracy of 10,000 songs on one ISP should grant them $1 billion? Honestly, the award is so insane, and so out of touch with reality, I actually wonder if the RIAA might come to regret it, as it makes the strongest case I've seen yet for the sheer unconstitutional nature of statutory damages, without any evidence of actual damages, for copyright infringement.

Filed Under: contributory liability, copyright, internet access provider, jury verdict, statutory damages, vicarious liability, willful infringement
Companies: cox, cox communications, riaa, sony music, universal music, warner music


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:23am

    'Recusal? What's that?'

    Sensing an opportunity to cash in, all of the RIAA major record labels jumped in to sue Cox as well -- and got the same exact judge, Liam O'Grady.

    Because of course a judge who isn't a fan of the while 'internet' thing should be overseeing cases involving it... Might as well have an overtly vegan judge who has previously said they see nothing wrong in shutting down restaurants that serve non-vegan menu items issuing judgements on cases that involve that very type of restaurants.

    As for the damages angle I'm definitely going to agree with the article on this one, the fact that .50-1.00 dollar songs magically become worth just under one-hundred thousand each simply highlights just how utterly insane copyright law is. A $10,000 car would not become worth the same as a high-end luxury car going for hundreds of thousands simply because someone stole it, and in that case there would be an actual loss by the owner, even if only temporary.

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 12:52pm

      Anti-internet judge

      The fact that we can have anti-internet judges seems to be an indictment of the failure of the entire justice system, especially since it's been established within the international community that internet access is a human right (and that we're right to frown on India for its ongoing shutdown in Kashmir)

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:14pm

        Re: Anti-internet judge

        They aren't anti-internet, just anti-THIEF.

        The little fantasy clusterfuck here has nothing to do with reality.

        MANICK is a propaganda mouthpiece and a very ineffective one at that. History won't even remember him.

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

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:23pm

          Re: Re: Anti-internet judge

          [Asserts facts not in evidence]

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:45pm

          History won't even remember him.

          It’s doing one hell of a job of forgetting you, too.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2019 @ 2:32am

          Re: Re: Anti-internet judge

          And people here aren't anti-copyright, they're anti-TERRORIST.

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

        • identicon
          Dave, 21 Dec 2019 @ 5:12am

          Re: Re: Anti-internet judge

          Oh dear - resident troll's away again. Does seem to be the most revolting, despicable, detestable and mouthy little person. Small-man syndrome, I reckon. Wonder if he has ANY social graces at all, hiding behind the electronics of a computer screen. Wonder what the result would be if these loathsome insults were thrown face-to-face? Wouldn't happen, because these sort of people are invariably out-and-out cowards. Obviously been to the Trump charm school.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:52am

    this is why the entertainment industries wanted a jury verdict!
    1)because stopping piracy is impossible
    2)because the entertainment industries wanted maximum monies from a company that could easily go bankrupt
    3)because the more companies of this type that go bankrupt, the easier it will be for the entertainment industries to take complete control of the internet, to have it restricted to only users the industries give permission to or to shut it down! these same industries have done whatever they can for decades to limit progress of all things technical that they cant control and the internet is no different. add in the courts country wide and now worldwide willing to take everything possible from the people and put under the control of companies (especially since Trump came on the scene) and see where this is going! they wont stop until they get what they want and it's about time the rest of the world actually acknowledged what's going on and stood against them. saying 'No', means 'No'! the public stopped other ridiculous things from happening, how come we cant stop the entertainment industries from taking control of the best communication platform invented to date, just because they refuse to change with the rest of the world?

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

    • icon
      urza9814 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:14pm

      Re:

      I figured they wanted a jury verdict because nearly every living American despises the cable companies and would be eager to exploit this opportunity for revenge. I'm sure the judge hates Cox just as much, but he's got a bigger obligation to remain "professional".

      Granted, most of us despise the RIAA too, but they have less name recognition.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:30pm

        Re: Re:

        MOTHER: (calling down to the basement) "Honey, dinner is almost ready, please come upstairs."

        SON: "I will in just a minute."

        MOTHER: "What are you doing down there?"

        SON: "Nothing! Don't worry about it."

        MOTHER: "You're not still playing around with those torrent files, are you?"

        SON: "What I'm doing is none of your business."

        MOTHER: "I told you, I'm happy to give you my Spotify password..."

        SON: "NO! NO MOM, NO!"

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Dec 2019 @ 11:03pm

        Re: Re:

        "I figured they wanted a jury verdict because nearly every living American despises the cable companies and would be eager to exploit this opportunity for revenge."

        All too true. This is just a case of a major crook holding up a minor crook at gunpoint. Difficult to muster much sympathy even for the jurisprudens principle being violated in the proceedings.

        US telcos, not just Cox, are in the crapper because they had a choice way back when the DMCA was announced. Either voluntarily embrace "mere conduit" wholeheartedly and remain in safe harbor in perpetuity...
        ...or try using traffic shaping and metadata collection to intervene in their customer's data transfers and lose safe harbor.

        Thi is a wakeup call for them. Unless the Cox verdict is completely overturned US telcos will have the option of rapidly becoming staunch defenders of mere conduit, or remain wide open to any crackpot lawsuit launched by passing copyright trolls.

        As I keep saying, the dogfight between Cox and the copyright cult as spearheaded by "Old Bought" Grady is just one of those rare examples where multiple wrongs colluded to produce a right.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 6:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Whether they are a neutral conduit or not, has nothing to do with a requirement to pass on notices or disconnect customers on the say so of the copyright cartel. This is has to do with the copyright cartel recruiting other companies to wage war of 'pirates' by the use of arbitrary punishment.

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Dec 2019 @ 2:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "has nothing to do with a requirement to pass on notices or disconnect customers on the say so of the copyright cartel."

            It does, actually. To retain safe harbor an ISP needs to have a policy which is consistently followed. That policy may consist of disconnecting alleged infringers on allegation, on demanding burden of proof, on passing on notices blindly...

            ...but it may not be a policy which the ISP itself fails to adhere to, and it must be a neutral response which always produces the same result. This is part of the mere conduit principle. That the ISP itself is the passive part.

            Cox deliberately DID set up a policy which claimed they'd handle alleged piracy in a certain way - then deviated from that/failed to fulfill the expectations of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

            In short they would have been far better off stonewalling the copyright cult's mass-mailed notices consistently than implementing a scheme trying to meet the cult halfway.

            Ironically O'Grady's verdict relied almost exclusively on the fact that since Cox had attempted to police their network by setting a policy of doing so yet failed to consistently execute that policy, Cox lost safe harbor.

            That's why this entire case has turned into an object lesson to every US ISP that trying to appease the copyright cult will cause legal exposure to a far greater degree than stonewalling it will.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:53am

    1,000,000,000/10,017 = 99830.28850953

    I would almost be willing to bet that lost ~$15 that somebody 'asked for $1 and the jury tried to make it work out that way.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:54am

    Because of course a judge who isn't a fan of the while 'internet' thing should be overseeing cases involving it... Might as well have an overtly vegan judge who has previously said they see nothing wrong in shutting down restaurants that serve non-vegan menu items issuing judgements on cases that involve that very type of restaurants.

    No, it's because the federal courts assign "related cases" to the same judge. Standard procedure that can just as easily work in reverse.

    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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:55am

    Irrelevant fuckwit says what?

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:58am

      I believe they say “irrelevant fuckwit says what”.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:01am

        Re:

        And "they" put the period outside the quotes.

        Sucks to lose so horribly I know. Don't worry, insulting me will make up for all of it!

        Manick's an irrelevant JOKE to the world.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:06am

          Manick's an irrelevant JOKE to the world.

          And yet, here you are, treating him so seriously that you’re literally hoping his family dies in a plane crash so you can orgasm.

          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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:16pm

            Re:

            And yet, here you are, treating him so seriously that you’re literally hoping his family dies in a plane crash so you can orgasm.

            Yet you obsess over me way more than I do over MANICK. Like some here say when they talk shit, it's just ENTERTAINMENT!

            What isn't entertainment is the dossier on him and his lawyer buddies that'll be making its way around his white-collar circles. Lots of people are getting sick of the little punk and truth is a great light to shine on the cockroach.

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

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:45pm

              Yet you obsess over me way more than I do over MANICK.

              No, I don’t. You spend every waking minute of your life dreaming about (and possibly masturbating to) all the violent, sexual, and violently sexual things you’d do to Mike and his family. I browse Twitter, jack off to Gianna Michaels videos, and occasionally watch a movie. The only time I think about you is when you shit up these comments sections and I get a chance to blow off some steam.

              Like some here say when they talk shit, it's just ENTERTAINMENT!

              You thinking you’re funny doesn’t make you funny. Your passing off threats toward Mike and his family as “entertainment” doesn’t makes you any less of a Schrödinger’s Rapist/Murderer.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2019 @ 4:03am

              Re: Re:

              Cool story bro.

              Well it was cool about two years ago. Now it’s growing mould like your useless cock.

              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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:03am

        Re:

        Hey Masnick if your entire family died in a plane crash I'd laugh even louder!!

        Just like you find it "entertaining" to "say mean things" why not join in the fun!!

        How's it feel to be such a negative influence on your causes?

        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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:57am

    As for the damages angle I'm definitely going to agree with the article on this one, the fact that .50-1.00 dollar songs magically become worth just under one-hundred thousand each simply highlights just how utterly insane copyright law is. A $10,000 car would not become worth the same as a high-end luxury car going for hundreds of thousands simply because someone stole it, and in that case there would be an actual loss by the owner, even if only temporary.

    It's not the song that is valuable, it's the LAW that DETERS this conduct. Masnick just learned how irrelevant his viewpoint is and it's great!

    Apparently, copying IS theft. Don't like it, don't steal it!

    Nice "meltdown" article LOLOLOLOL

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:03am

      It's not the song that is valuable

      I’m not sure that helps your argument, and I’m not sure the RIAA would appreciate someone making that argument.

      it's the LAW that DETERS this conduct

      The law says a company that didn’t willfully infringe upon copyrights has to pay a billion dollars in damages. The law says someone who files a false DMCA takedown notification should be punished but can basically get off scot-free because the courts don’t give a shit.

      How are these laws supposed to “deter conduct”, again?

      Apparently, copying IS theft.

      No, it isn’t. Copying is copying. Whether it is copyright infringement depends on the context. And copying can never be theft because nothing is stolen. (You can skip the “potential revenue” argument; we all know it’s bullshit.) If’n you want to make that mistake again, I can gladly teach you the basics. I’ll even make sure to use lots of one-syllable words so you can understand what I say.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:06am

        Re:

        I think he's moved past the 'make comments that look loosely like an argument or valid position' and into the full on 'spam-bot' stage.

        I hope it is not contagious.

        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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:11am

        Re:

        WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

        Poor MANICK....

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:13am

          You really don’t have any actual counterarguments, do you?

          We get it, you want to fuck Mike. (Or do you want him to fuck you? You seem more like a power bottom to me.)

          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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:20pm

            Re:

            You really don’t have any actual counterarguments, do you?

            Logical debates don't happen here. Just harassment of ten against me that'll be following MANICK everywhere he appears in public.

            He likes intellectual combat so he'll welcome what comes next.

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:40pm

              Just harassment of ten against me that'll be following MANICK everywhere he appears in public.

              We get it, you’re stalking Mike. Go ask him on a date or get over your little crush, pal. We’re not here to be Grindr for you.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2019 @ 4:03am

              Re: Re:

              Any day now...
              Any day now...
              Any day now...

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

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:03am

          Re: Re:

          Your father would be disappointed in you if he stayed.

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

        • identicon
          Dave, 21 Dec 2019 @ 5:24am

          Re: Re:

          I really don't know why you bother to exert what little muscle power you have, pounding out these meaningless and spiteful diatribes. Vindictiveness, revenge and retaliation (not to mention the odd bout of sarcasm) don't become ANYBODY, as the "great" orange Trump has already amply demonstrated. Ever thought of becoming a politician? Seems you have the required "qualities" of turn-coat and hypocrisy.

          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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:18pm

        Re:

        *The law says a company that didn’t willfully infringe upon copyrights WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

        Only MANICK thinks contributory infringement doesn't exist. Reality, something he's rather disconnected from, just asserted itself.

        He writes like an eighth-grader and thinks like a second-grader. It'd be really funny if his kids died of leukemia btw.

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

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:21pm

          Re: Re:

          He writes like an eighth-grader and thinks like a second-grader. It'd be really funny if his kids died of leukemia btw.

          Projection. Classic.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:39pm

          He writes like an eighth-grader and thinks like a second-grader.

          …says the asshole who writes like an eighth-grader and thinks like a second-grader.

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

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 21 Dec 2019 @ 4:00am

            Re:

            Objection! Eighth-graders can almost certainly write much better than the resident lunatic, and second-graders are much more lucid and less demented in their thinking.

            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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:59am

    We've long wondered why statutory damages are even a thing in copyright, because they really don't make any sense.

    The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it.

    Great verdict!!!

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:04am

      The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it.

      1. Copyright infringement is not theft.

      2. I fail to see how penalizing Cox for its lax policies will stop Cox from doing something it wasn’t doing in the first place (willfully infringing upon copyrights).

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:11am

        Re:

        *Waaaaaaaah!"

        Reality says otherwise. Poor MANICK.

        His shit wife will have to soothe his bruised ego it seems.

        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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:21pm

        Re:

        Copyright infringement is not theft.

        Not in MANICK's world, but in the real world it sure is. Just ask the COXuckers.

        A BILLION DOLLARS says it all. That's BILLION, the number MANICK has made fun of in other lawsuits.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:37pm

          in the real world it sure is

          The Supreme Court says otherwise. Their opinions are binding legal precedent. What the fuck are yours?

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Dec 2019 @ 11:11pm

            Re:

            "The Supreme Court says otherwise. Their opinions are binding legal precedent. What the fuck are yours?"

            Eh, Bobmail just went full meltdown again. Every now and then he has those little episodes where he just can't help himself.

            I think it's a copyright thing. He still can't get over the idea that the obvious lies spun by the RIAA and MPAA don't, in fact, override the Supreme Court.

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

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 2:38pm

              The RIAA and MPAA don't override the Supreme Court

              To be fair, they just need to rent a bigger army.

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

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Dec 2019 @ 2:57am

                Re: The RIAA and MPAA don't override the Supreme Court

                "To be fair, they just need to rent a bigger army."

                According to Bobmail/Blue/Jhon they already got one and ANY DAY NOW it will descend on all of us ungodly pirates and haul us off in chains. He's been salivating over that fantasy since his days on Torrentfreak.

                It's only when we point out that it's still more dangerous to cross the road than to copy media online that he blows his top and starts screaming about murder and rape. Or, if he feels particularly restrained, mere SWATting and lawsuits.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:11am

      Re:

      I'm honestly glad you are fixated on this site and Mike. It prevents more of your insanity from affecting the world for every minute you waste here.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:44am

      Re: ah

      “The idea is to deter theft”

      Oh so it’s like the war on drugs.

      A boomer invention lol

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re: ah

        Hold on a sec .... the war on drugs was started by nixon, that was in the seventies.
        Many so called boomers were not even old enough at the time to vote. granted, their later votes sucked but so did many other groups with derogatory names.
        This generational bullshit is just another of many techniques used to divide and conquer.

        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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:22pm

        Re: Re: ah

        “The idea is to deter theft”
        Oh so it’s like the war on drugs.

        No it's a war on piracy.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:36pm

          And like the war on drugs, the war on piracy is a financial drain that hasn’t even come close to stopping illegal activity anywhere. The RIAA and MPAA spent millions to kill piracy, and they failed so hard that PornHub is now a legitimate (if unreliable) source for pirated movies.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:44am

      Re:

      The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it.

      Except that Cox paying $1 billion, or even going out of business entirely, won't stop the actual infringers. They'll just keep doing it somewhere else.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:03am

        Re: Re:

        Except the whole idea is to get a free ride.

        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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:23pm

        Re: Re:

        Except that Cox paying $1 billion, or even going out of business entirely, won't stop the actual infringers. They'll just keep doing it somewhere else.

        No, they won't, because prison is on the table, and no ISP's going to risk bankruptcy just to enable piracy.

        This is a decisive win for those who make over those who take.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:33pm

          prison is on the table

          …fucking what

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

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:58pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Enable piracy, my ass. I bet your sorry asshat won't show up here when the settlement is reduced on appeal. Funny that.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 12:36am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "No, they won't, because prison is on the table, and no ISP's going to risk bankruptcy just to enable piracy."

          Except it's not, and what you keep failing to see is that all this does ruling does is to ensure that US ISP's will henceforth be very careful to maintain their safe harbors the only practically possible way they can - by strenuously being mere conduits unaware of (and unable to) what the hell their customers are doing.

          No ISP can function in a paradigm of intermediate liability - at all. So they one thing the trolls of the copyright cult accomplished here is to wreck their own business model.

          But feel free to carole in joy over the feces-tinted visions you experience in your twisted little la-la land while your drugs hold out, Bobmail. One day you'll have to face factual reality after all.

          The future only holds one of two possible realities. One where the US is part of the 3rd world since it has become impossible for any internet providers to exist...or a US where "copyright" is a long-abandoned insanity rightly consigned to the scrapheap of history.

          No doubt at that time you'll still be doing your own version of "The south shall rise again" while threatening to rape the disabled from your seat on the nursing home porch - in that particularly malicious fashion we've come to expect from you.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:50am

      Re:

      ...ith a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it.

      This has worked out well with the war on drugs as well.

      What should be the next logical progression is putting those thieves in prison, like NYS did under the Rockefeller drug laws of old. I'm sure you'll love having to pay for their food and housing while they work off the billion dollars you'll never get from them.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:25pm

        Re: Re:

        What should be the next logical progression is putting those thieves in prison, like NYS did under the Rockefeller drug laws of old. I'm sure you'll love having to pay for their food and housing while they work off the billion dollars you'll never get from them.

        Thieves belong in prison. That's the next step.

        MANICK's voice is so IMPOTENT in this debate it turns out.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:32pm

          Thieves belong in prison.

          Ahem.

          [I]nterference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: “ ‘Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,’ that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, ‘is an infringer of the copyright.’ [17 U.S.C.] 501(a).”

          The Supreme Court said “copyright infringement isn’t theft”. Given the reverence you’ve shown the court involved with this case, I wonder how much reverence you’re going to show for a quote from the highest court in the land that disagrees with you. (Your opinions are just that. The Supreme Court’s opinions are binding legal precedent. Guess which opinions matter more.)

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2019 @ 10:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          “IMPOTENT”

          And the award for Best projection ever by an old fuckwit goes to Cryun Lyin Jhon Smyth!

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 6:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Thieves belong in prison. That's the next step.

          And your taxes will pay to keep them there.

          Dumbass.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 10:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Thieves belong in prison."

          Yup, but when the DA refuses to prosecute, said thieves remain out in public - free to repeat their nefarious activities so long as they contribute to the corrupt political campaign.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 12:39am

        Re: Re:

        "This has worked out well with the war on drugs as well."

        No need to go all the way to some other "war".

        The "war on piracy" has been going on ever since the self-playing piano was invented. The pirates have won every battle so far (the VCR, radio, the MP3, DVD, etc) and the only reason the copyright cult is still around is because piracy is, irrespective of their long-debunked mantra, not harmful to their interests at all.

        More's the pity.

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

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:12am

      Re:

      The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it

      1. It's not theft. Even this ruling doesn't call it theft.

      2. The Constitution explicitly forbids this kind of penalizing mentality precisely because it stops being about encouraging people to follow the law and just becomes about destroying people's lives. At that point you no longer have a system of justice. You are advocating for something that is much more like crime boss style thuggery.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 12:46am

        Re: Re:

        "You are advocating for something that is much more like crime boss style thuggery."

        Of course he is. Ever since Jhon/Blue posted this same shit on torrentfreak under the name "Bobmail" it's been pretty clear that in his twisted imagination his view of "law" is the same as that of some malicious 5th century BC potentate who likes to jerk off to people being flayed and burned at the stake.

        And every time someone points out that he'll never be in the position of watching that scene in reality he has a meltdown and starts gibbering about "pirates" in hysteria.

        "Justice" is anathema to someone who has hung his entire ego on the idea that he should be able to control how people think.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 10:58am

        Re: Re:

        "At that point you no longer have a system of justice. You are advocating for something that is much more like crime boss style thuggery."

        When justice is doled out by sadists it no longer is justice.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re:

        You are advocating for something that is much more like crime boss style thuggery.

        You say that while he's defending the RIAA. I don't think "advocating" is the word you are looking for here.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      It will be awesome when you get the death penalty for walking on the grass or some shit. That's how out of proportion the jury award is. Deterrents do not get to be that extreme. Never mind that deterrents like that are never deterrents to the people actually doing the infringing, they don't have that much to give.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:25pm

        Re: Re:

        It will be awesome when you get the death penalty for walking on the grass or some shit. That's how out of proportion the jury award is. Deterrents do not get to be that extreme. Never mind that deterrents like that are never deterrents to the people actually doing the infringing, they don't have that much to give.

        COXsucker can afford the billion. The rest are on notice that #piracyisover so badly that they'll be dreaming of KPop stan videos.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:26pm

          The rest are on notice that #piracyisover

          Call me when the feds start arresting everyone en masse for watching a clip from The Rise of Skywalker that was posted outside of a Disney-controlled account. Until then, copyright infringement isn’t dead, and this court ruling isn’t going to kill it. Neither will your sexual fantasies about you shoving infringers into the gas chamber and pulling the switch.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 12:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The rest are on notice that #piracyisover..."

          Again?

          This makes which time over the last twenty years that some copyright cult moron described the "war on piracy" as "won"?

          As usual, Baghdad Bob, you keep describing the scene of the republican guard throwing the allies out of Iraq with such relish it's almost hard to tell you for how many years that war was lost for your side...

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 11:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The rest are on notice that #piracyisover "

          Oh noes!
          I am really getting worried about the rising sea levels!

          Does this mean the record labels will stop stealing from artists then?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2019 @ 8:25am

      Re:

      The idea is to deter theft or the enabling of theft with a penalty so severe the thieves will either stop doing it or be bankrupted for doing it.

      Except in this case it was not the infringers that are being punished. There must be another reason, like getting the ISP's to implement their terror tactics of disconnect a family is they claim someone used hat IP address to infringe on copyright.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 1:04am

        Re: Re:

        "There must be another reason, like getting the ISP's to implement their terror tactics of disconnect a family is they claim someone used hat IP address to infringe on copyright."

        Only three possible outcomes of that;

        Either intermediate liability becomes a thing, in which case running an ISP at all becomes as risky as running a drug import ring. The US becomes the first nation to entirely lose it's internet, along with it's international competitive ability.

        Or US ISP's become fanatic adherents of net neutrality in order to safeguard safe harbor and no copyright complaint will ever touch them or their customers again.

        ...or, and this is increasingly likely, in order to safeguard both businesses and individuals the deep net becomes the new US standard for online data traffic and no one, copyright cult or government agency, ever gets to learn or say anything about what goes on online ever again.

        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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 9:59am

    Tell me again how y'all have "explained" how this couldn't happen.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    A beautiful day for creators.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:05am

      Re:

      If any creator sees a penny of that award, pigs will sprout wings and fly.

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

      • identicon
        Dave, 21 Dec 2019 @ 5:30am

        Re: Re:

        I agree. Artists and creators probably won't see a bean of that sum - assuming it sticks. It will be squirreled away under some outrageous expense account, I expect.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:09am

      Please explain how a corporation winning a vastly inflated sum of money from another corporation — money which will never be paid to creators themselves in any significant amount, if the RIAA even manages to collect it — is “a beautiful day for creators”.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:10am

        Re:

        *Waaaaaah!"

        Keep crying. Your tears wash my windshield very nicely.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:11am

          What was that you were saying yesterday about psychopathy and glib retorts? Because all your sexual fantasies about Masnick’s family dying in a plane crash is probably a second checkbox on the list.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:51am

            Re:

            If you look up glib as a sign of psychosis, it centers around glibness/artificial charm. This guy has zero charm. It may be a form of mental illness, but it's probably not that one.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:45pm

              Re: Re:

              That's usually psychopathy. They are not all charming.

              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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:27pm

              Re: Re:

              If you look up glib as a sign of psychosis, it centers around glibness/artificial charm. This guy has zero charm. It may be a form of mental illness, but it's probably not that one.

              Cool story "Doc."

              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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:58pm

            Re:

            What was that you were saying yesterday about psychopathy and glib retorts? Because all your sexual fantasies about Masnick’s family dying in a plane crash is probably a second checkbox on the list.

            Oooooh you're SO serious!

            Maybe YOU fantasize about MANICK that way but don't speak for me.

            Today's ruling shows just how STUPID and IRRELEVANT he is. This is an epic tantrum of an article he posted, that's for sure.

            How's it feel to LOSE worse than anyone has ever LOST in court on an issue he cares about? Oh yeah, MANICK hides behind his "fans."

            Looks like whatever he was trying to accomplish with his editorials, he didn't. Wonder if this will impact his gravy train.

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

            • icon
              norahc (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 2:42pm

              Re: Re:

              Oooooh you're SO serious!

              Pot, meet kettle

              Maybe YOU fantasize about MANICK that way but don't speak for me.

              You shouldn't even be speaking for yourself

              Today's ruling shows just how STUPID and IRRELEVANT copyright law is.

              Fixed that for you

              This is an epic tantrum of an article he posted, that's for sure.

              And your tantrum is an order of magnitude higher.

              How's it feel to LOSE worse than anyone has ever LOST in court on an issue he cares about?

              Considering he wasn't even a party to the lawsuit, he didn't lose.

              Oh yeah, MANICK hides behind his "fans."

              Yet you're the one hiding behins the AC tag.

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 3:38pm

              …damn, man, hire a prostitute and call her Mike or whatever, goddamn.

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

        • icon
          Norahc (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:21am

          Re: Re:

          The only one I hear making crying noises in this thread is 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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:26pm

        Re:

        Please explain how a corporation winning a vastly inflated sum of money from another corporation — money which will never be paid to creators themselves in any significant amount, if the RIAA even manages to collect it — is “a beautiful day for creators”.

        It means that ALL creators now have protection. It means the thieves who said they wouldn't purchase if piracy were not available can now back up those words.

        MANICK, on the other hand, was just made to look like the irrelevant idiot that he is.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:17pm

          It means the thieves who said they wouldn't purchase if piracy were not available can now back up those words.

          The MPAA and RIAA spent millions upon millions of dollars in their attempts to stop piracy. They failed. What makes you think this court ruling will do what those two corporate behemoths could not?

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:54pm

      Creators

      Creators notoriously are underpaid by the labels and studios, and Hollywood accounting remains a thing. The way that artists outside of the fetters of a studio contract operate is to focus on tours and not being a total dick.

      It doesn't bring Michael Jackson level success, but it does make for a six-figure income.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:31pm

        Re: Creators

        Creators notoriously are underpaid by the labels and studios, and Hollywood accounting remains a thing. The way that artists outside of the fetters of a studio contract operate is to focus on tours and not being a total dick.

        In other words, they have to do LABOR, except songwriters don't have that option and those who can tour should make money IN ADDITION to what they make touring. Creators WILLINGLY sign over their work to the publishers and get very wealthy in the process. Many become millionaires without ever being known. Look up Sid Prosen for example.

        Artists also get paid UP FRONT especially in SAG-AFTRA and make millions when they make hits. The way to "not be a total dick" is to NOT STEAL WORK in the first place. Those who run pirate sites are profiting from organized crime. Also criminal copyright infringement is a predicate RICO act.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 1:09am

      Re:

      "Tell me again how y'all have "explained" how this couldn't happen."

      No one ever did, but feel free to, as usual, rewrite the past in your own imagination.

      What we were telling you then and are again telling you now, is that this ruling is the worst possible thing for the copyright cult since it incentivizes every US ISP to ensure they retain safe harbor by being mere conduits.

      Worst case possible, from the pirate point of view, is that henceforth the deep net becomes the standard for both ISP's and their consumers and you asshats lose every possibility to even measure the extent to which people copy media.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 10:02am

    Hey Masnick if your entire family died in a plane crash I'd laugh even louder!

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

  • identicon
    SJD, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:34am

    I asked this on Twitters but nobody is willing to enlighten me:

    A question to those who cheer the Cox verdict: if you were a label, would you prefer that pirates would be kicked offline (bringing exactly $0 to your coffers) or get a billion dollar payday? Be honest.

    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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:34pm

      Re:

      A question to those who cheer the Cox verdict: if you were a label, would you prefer that pirates would be kicked offline (bringing exactly $0 to your coffers) or get a billion dollar payday? Be honest.

      As a creator I would rather all pirates be kicked offline.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:21pm

        As a creator I would rather all pirates be kicked offline.

        Consider the following: Infringing upon copyright is as easy as saving a copy of a copyrighted image to your computer. If you booted everyone guilty of even the smallest kind of copyright infringement — “piracy”, if you will — how do you expect to make money from your works when no one would be around to see or buy them?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:42am

    Abolish Copyright

    Stop the insanity.

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

  • icon
    dan8mx (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:42am

    Damages

    Even Equifax wasn't on the hook for a billion dollars. I don't know which 10,017 works were shared, but apparently they're worth more than our social security numbers and credit card numbers

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 12:34pm

      Re: Damages

      Well, of course. Everyone knows The Holy Copyright Without Which Society Itself Would Collapse is the most valuable resource in existence, mere social security and/or credit card numbers pale in comparison and worth. /s

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 11:47am

    ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. WILLIAMS et al. has been repeatedly cited and applied as precedent supporting the statutory damages framework embodied in federal copyright law. Not clear how it applies to negating an award of such damages within the stated range of the statutory framework.

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

  • icon
    urza9814 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:32pm

    "Come back with a warrant?"

    So...I've got some friends on Cox, who get disconnected every couple months, and they call up customer service and give some story about "Piracy? What's that? Secure Wifi? I don't know what any of that means!"...and then they get reconnected. Meanwhile, there's people who download CONSTANTLY on Verizon and have never heard a word about it. So I assume Verizon's policy is essentially "Come back when you've got a court order"?

    It says here that a large part of the problem is that Cox did not obey their own policy for dealing with repeat infringers. Sounds like they might not have lost if their policy was "That's not our problem". They chose to become an enforcement agency, and they got sued for failing to do that job well enough. That's what you get when you try to help a group of crooks like the RIAA...

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 1:48pm

      Comcast and AT&T

      Both of these companies use a 13 strikes thing where they send growling messages about reports they got regarding copyright infringement on given IP addies.

      They don't say how many strikes someone has left, so I don't know if it's actually thirteen, and I've never heard of anyone first-hand actually getting penalized.

      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, 20 Dec 2019 @ 6:35pm

      Re: "Come back with a warrant?"

      So...I've got some friends on Cox, who get disconnected every couple months, and they call up customer service and give some story about "Piracy? What's that? Secure Wifi? I don't know what any of that means!"...and then they get reconnected. Meanwhile, there's people who download CONSTANTLY on Verizon and have never heard a word about it. So I assume Verizon's policy is essentially "Come back when you've got a court order"?

      Now they have one. Piracy is officially dead in the US now.

      It says here that a large part of the problem is that Cox did not obey their own policy for dealing with repeat infringers. Sounds like they might not have lost if their policy was "That's not our problem". They chose to become an enforcement agency, and they got sued for failing to do that job well enough. That's what you get when you try to help a group of crooks like the RIAA...

      No, their problem was "willful blindness" and a ridiculous "thirteen-strike" policy.

      The battle is over. The copyrightholders have won, more decisively than I could ever have imagined.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Dec 2019 @ 7:22pm

        Piracy is officially dead in the US now.

        TF2 mercs, take it away.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 8:37pm

        Re: Re: "Come back with a warrant?"

        Piracy is officially dead in the US now.

        I'm in the US. I just right-clicked an image from a website and saved it to my computer. I think I'll do it again tomorrow.

        Yo ho ho.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2019 @ 10:03am

          Re: Re: Re: "Come back with a warrant?"

          So I decided that I wasn't done.

          I printed out that image, and I gave it to a friend! Just stop creating now everyone, it's all over! You'll never make money again!!

          /laughs maniacally

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2019 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re: "Come back with a warrant?"

        “Now they have one. Piracy is officially dead in the US now.“

        Oh wait your serious. Let me laugh even harder!

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Dec 2019 @ 1:19am

        Re: Re: "Come back with a warrant?"

        "Now they have one. Piracy is officially dead in the US now."

        It always amuses when you try to hold a solid suck & fail up as a glorious win, Baghdad Bob.

        The one and only reason that Cox was open to that lawsuit in the first place was because they tried to have a policy of enforcing copyright for you guys and failed to do the job properly.

        Verizon and other ISP's have just learned that in order to remain untouchable to lawsuits such as these they need to tell the copyright cult "Screw you, policing our customers is NOT our business".

        "No, their problem was "willful blindness" and a ridiculous "thirteen-strike" policy. "

        You never even read a single line of the verdict, right?
        O'Grady, as staunch an ally of the copyright cult as he is, was pretty damn clear that the only reason Cox lost safe harbor was because they had an anti-pirate policy they failed to implement.

        Since it isn't possible to "properly" implement such a policy and still remain in business as an ISP the only escape is to rely on NOT having any such policy other than "in the wastebasket with unproven allegations".

        "The battle is over. The copyrightholders have won, more decisively than I could ever have imagined."

        You keep saying that. And yet not one single pirate has ever noticed a damn thing.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2019 @ 7:26am

      Re: "Come back with a warrant?"

      "and then they get reconnected"

      and then there is the grandmother who does not own a computer that gets slapped with law suit claiming infringement

      and then there is the printer

      and then there is the ....

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 2:45pm

    Why do you think grady was given the case? Talk about an entertainment industries stooge! He's as bad as howell and look what she's now doing!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2019 @ 8:41pm

    John Smith showing off the mess that Grady made on his face after grinding his knees to the pavement, news at 11.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2019 @ 10:59am

    This whole thing is stupid. The jury wanted to award 1 billion, obviously, and fudged the math to do so. Even if they had done the math correctly, nobody would believe that they came up with $99,830.29 per work for any other reason than to get to $1 billion. If there had been exactly 10,000 allegedly infringing works, they would have awarded exactly $100,000 per work to get to that number, despite all other facts being the same. That's arbitrary and unfair.

    Did the RIAA really and truly prove that they owned the copyright for all 10,017 allegedly infringing works? Did they prove that each of those works was, in fact, infringing (after all, not every illegal music file on the Internet is correctly labeled)? Did they prove that each of those works was, in fact, infringed - and willfully infringed, at that? Did the jury go through the list and make sure there were no duplicates? Were the 10,017 works even individually named so the jury could do that?

    We're talking $99,830.29 per infringement here. Shortcuts shouldn't be allowed.

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

  • icon
    tp (profile), 22 Dec 2019 @ 2:57pm

    isp position on copyright is completely crazy

    If ordinary authors need to examine their copyrighted works against copyright infringement and even 3 lines of copied code can result in 100k of damage awards between authors, then how does isp's crazy math figure out that they can get away with 10000 infringement in their technology without anyone noticing? The isp's position that they're just transfering the bits as is without ability to control the infringing activity is completely crazy.

    The whole idea that isps can get away with inringements simply doesnt make sense. If their customers use the internet connection for piracy, it is the responsibility o the isp to control the activity happening in the network. It's simply crazy position that isps dont need to care about inringements simply because they're handling different part of the technology stack, while everyone else around them are getting 300k damage awards for piracy.

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

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 22 Dec 2019 @ 3:47pm

      Re: isp position on copyright is completely crazy

      Sorry toiletpaper, but Blue already beat you to "craziest post on the thread" long ago.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 4:58pm

      Re:

      ISPs are not going to pay for your shitty "meshpage", Minecrafter.

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 24 Dec 2019 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re:

        ISPs are not going to pay for your shitty "meshpage", Minecrafter.

        Time was spent. Work was done successfully. Product finished and shipped. Someone must pay.

        Whether you make isps or end users or adverticers to pay, it doesn't matter. I tried to sell the web property for 150k dollars. Noone took the bait yet, so some other mechanism will be developed, until there's successful extraction of the money.

        Did you think these 5 billion web pages on the planet comes for free? You gotta be kidding us.

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

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 24 Dec 2019 @ 7:15pm

          "Someone must pay."

          Wow. That was pretty good. Maybe twirl your moustache a bit more? And add in a good round of hearty evil laughter.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2019 @ 7:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Successful"? You can't even scrounge up money to pay for advertising. The product looks shittier than a programming student's first attempt at coding a game engine in C++. Give me a fucking break.

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 31 Dec 2019 @ 3:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Successful"? The product looks shittier than a programming student's first attempt at coding a game engine in C++.

            its still better than what you managed to build in last 10 years...

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2020 @ 7:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Plenty that I don't need to show off to someone who has an easily bruised ego and has to resort to begging the government for a mansion, fam, for technology he claims to have sold to the MPAA.

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 2 Jan 2020 @ 1:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                has to resort to begging the government for a mansion

                This seems to be a trend in internet, given that even Jimmy Wales kept begging for money in his web page.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2020 @ 7:19pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You genuinely thought that was a smart comeback didn't you? Except for a few points:

                  1. People actually use Wikipedia instead of that mess of code you have the balls to call a graphics and game engine
                  2. Wales doesn't ask for a mansion
                  3. Wales is not nearly a thousandth of the self-centered asshole you are

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2019 @ 7:44am

    The enemy of my enemy.

    Who is the villain and who is the hero here? Perhaps I'm not seeing correctly, but the RIAA versus a big ISP appears to be two curs fighting over a dirty bone.

    If my enemy and the enemy of my enemy harm each other, am I not better off?

    A plague on both houses!

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

    • icon
      Wyrm (profile), 24 Dec 2019 @ 9:23am

      Re: The enemy of my enemy.

      The only way to come out sane from watching this is checking the issue rather than the actors. In this case, you might have reasons to hate the ISP, but they are hands down the one you should side with.

      If this is considered willful copyright infringement, Internet overall will be doomed, in the US at least. The only option left will be to completely drop any effort at moderation because any less-than-perfect implementation will be interpreted as active support for the infringements, which is crazy.

      In any other domain, it would be seen as such. Imagine someone commits a murder in a building despite a gun check at the entrance, nobody would think of suing the security guards for willfully murdering the victim. Failing to find the gun is not the same as being an accomplice. (There would likely be an investigation to make sure none of the guards was indeed an accomplice, but none of them would be sued for just failing at finding the gun.)

      Obviously, circumstances are a bit different here, but the core concept is the same: failure to prevent a behavior is not the same as willfully contributing to it. Judging otherwise is a terrible idea, regardless of who the victim of the decision is.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 Dec 2019 @ 3:10am

        Re: Re: The enemy of my enemy.

        "The only option left will be to completely drop any effort at moderation because any less-than-perfect implementation will be interpreted as active support for the infringements, which is crazy."

        And this is why this is one of those cases where two wrongs end up making a right, sort of.

        The US now has a precedent case that demonstrates that either an ISP perfectly serves the interests of the copyright cult - which in the end renders the very concept of operating an ISP impossible.

        Or the ISP's need to start scrupulously adhering to being mere conduits which blindly pass on or scrap any allegation of infringement unbacked by an actual court of law, in the hope of retaining safe harbor.

        What the Cox case demonstrates is that trying to meet the copyright cults expectations, even halfway, is suicide.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2019 @ 1:58pm

    Seriously? Cox absolutely knew that its subscribers were pirating movies and music. Cox did nothing to deter or penalize its subscribers, so the court found it liable for damages. Cox deserved the billion dollar verdict. When you pirate content that is owned by the media companies, don't expect that you can get away with no repercussions.

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

  • icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 2 Jan 2020 @ 8:02am

    "Seriously? Cox absolutely knew that its subscribers were pirating movies and music."

    Ford similarly knows damn well many criminals use their cars for drug running, robbery and murder.

    Every hardware store in existence knows many of its tools end up being used by criminals.

    Criminals use telephone services.

    Yet you're giving all of those a free pass because why, exactly? Cox has the exact same culpability, except for one thing...

    "Cox did nothing to deter or penalize its subscribers, so the court found it liable for damages."

    Nope. The problem is, as O'Grady describes it quite well, that Cox is liable for damages and culpable because they tried and FAILED to deter and penalize it's subscribers according to Cox's own policy. Ironically if Cox had a policy of blindly passing along notices and otherwise ignoring any and all strike requests they would have been in the clear.

    That, you see, is how the DMCA safe harbor works.

    "Cox deserved the billion dollar verdict."

    Oh, i fully agree. Cox tried to lick the copyright cult's boots by meeting them halfway. No other ISP in the US will be dumb enough to do THAT again. As a pirate I heartily approve of cutting Cox's throat to send a message to other ISP's.
    That message, however, won't be the one you're thinking of.

    You see, in practical terms it isn't possible to fully meet the copyright cult and still operate an ISP. Meeting them halfway means you're the next Cox. Any time a copyright troll sends a notice you end up legally exposed.

    But the DMCA explicitly DOES allow ISP's to get away with ignoring the copyright cult completely, in practice, as long as they carry out whatever policy they have set down blindly.

    And so that's what will happen in the future.

    "When you pirate content that is owned by the media companies, don't expect that you can get away with no repercussions."

    Uh, you DO realize that not one single pirate was impacted by this, and neither will they in the future? Pirates will keep getting away with copying and transmitting whatever they wish until someone is dumb enough to pull the plug on the actual internet. You are still some 40000 times more likely to be struck by lightning when stepping outdoors than you are to find yourself in hot water over copying media files.

    But since you seem to have missed the last fifty years worth of this battle I'll forgive you for falling for the hype the MPAA have been braying mindlessly for all that time.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set 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.