back to article 14 strikes and you’re out. Or not. Emails reveal how Cox lost Safe Harbor

We now know why US cable ISP Cox Communications lost the "safe harbor" DMCA liability protection afforded to those who disconnect high volume P2P file sharers. It appears to be down to its failure to take infringement notices sufficiently seriously, a US court has ruled. Last week in an East Virginia court, a judge stripped …

  1. Graham 32

    "... in a case bought by music publishers BMG Rights Management and its copyright cop, Rightscorp Inc."

    At first I thought this was a typo, but given how the American legal system works, maybe not.

  2. M7S
    Headmaster

    described as "a habitual abuser",

    Therein lies the real problem, correctly letting staff know what is wrong.

    It's "an habitual abuser"

    Now I have to get on. I have this essay submitted by a pupil who's aunt has a parrot. He apparently lives with her.....**

    **Really old TV reference. If you get it, you're probably giving Werther's Original's to small children. Try not to get caught.

  3. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

    thanks for the clear explanation

    as a Cox subscriber, I was becoming concerned. Given your reasoned explanation and fact that I don't illegally download that to which I am not entitled, I see that concern was mostly unwarranted.

    I do hope Cox gets this resolved amicably. I currently enjoy a very fast connection for a reasonable price and would become very cross if my pipe shrunk or my bill grew due to actions not my own.

  4. Daggerchild Silver badge

    Burdens

    I'm curious about the abusability of the mechanism : they must terminate repeat abusers, but who establishes the guilt or innocence in the claim? Cox disregarded as much as they could, which is obviously off one end of the spectrum, but where is the line and who draws it?

    Can you push a person off the Internet just using weight of accusation alone?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Burdens

      in a word, yes. Yes you can.

    2. Youngone Silver badge

      Re: Burdens

      Can you push a person off the Internet just using weight of accusation alone?

      I think that's pretty much what the content owners are gunning for. Also Cox received 65,000 or so complaints over a couple of months.

      No wonder they ignored them, I ignore spam too.

      1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Re: Burdens

        "Cox received 65,000 or so complaints over a couple of months. No wonder they ignored them, I ignore spam too."

        Yep, and that's why the Judge stripped them of DMCA 512(a) safe harbour.

        Your an ISP... it isn't spam, you can't ignore it, and when your subscribers repeatedly infringe (and 'fess up) then you need to kick them off. That's what the law says you need to do, to quality for safe harbours liability exemptions.

        As a result of pandering to freetards, Lloyds has dumped Cox, and Cox's shareholders are on the hook for billions. Great work, guys.

        If this is how you do Due Diligence @YoungOne, remind me never to invest in one of your companies.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So these "offenders" were distributing

    I ask as my understanding is that receiving any broadcast data is not an offense but only the distribution of data proven to be owned by someone else.

    So in the US someone can set up shop spamming ISPs claiming to represent the copyright holders and the ISP is supposed to know these are all valid?

    If the situation is as has been suggested that these spammers can flood the ISP without any cost or fear of reprecussions for false accusations then clearly the system is not only biased against the public but also a burden upon every ISP.

    Maybe the same rights holders who get a cut from every sale of computer media should have to share it with all the ISPs, given thatthe ISP have to pay people to wade through spam, it seems only reasonable.

    Lastly if the data is encrypted and the ISP doesnt have the password then how can they validate that the content is owned by someone? or are they supposed to just take orders from the spam merchants?

  6. Roland6 Silver badge

    The judge could be totally wrong!

    The question is whether Cox has the resources to carry on the fight...

    It seems Cox did implement a DCMA take down procedure, as required, and adhered to it.

    I've not scanned the full memorandum, but the judge will need to have identified exactly where and how Cox didn't take DCMA infringement notices sufficiently seriously. Secondly he will need to identify where this actually breeches the law. Finally, there is the small but rather important matter that "terminate" of repeat offenders (in-addition to just what is meant by "repeat") hasn't been defined...

    What is also interesting, is how Rightscorp managed to determine that it was the same Cox subscriber(s) doing the repeated infringement, given there are no requirements for Cox to communicate with Rightscorp over the actions it has taken.

    1. John Lilburne

      Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

      OTOH they have emails between Cox managers and support staff where the staff is saying 'this guy has admitted to us he's pirating, we've asked him to stop a dozen times in the last six months" and the manager saying "he pays us $400 a month keep him on the books".

    2. Dr Stephen Jones

      Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

      "It seems Cox did implement a DCMA take down procedure, as required, and adhered to it."

      The Register should have an award for "Commentard who Most Totally Failed to read or understand the article"

      1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

        Great idea!

        But we'd soon run out of prizes.

      2. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

        I did understand it!

        The question is where does it say that an ISP's procedure should "take infringement notices sufficiently seriously"? and what exactly does that mean?

        The judge seems to have made a value judgement about Cox's procedure, without spelling out where it has failed to comply with it's own published policy and with the law...

        Additionally, as pointed out by others the volume of DCMA notifications received would cause problems, if the ISP like I suspect many others handles them by hand with a very small team of staff - they are probably still working their way through them...

        Remember a big part of this case will revolve around legal technicalities - just like the "round corners" case where some rounded corners didn't infringe and others did...

    3. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

      Yes, that's why we summarised it for you.

      You win Today's Award, Roland6

      1. Roland6 Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: The judge could be totally wrong!

        >You win Today's Award, Roland6

        Notoriety at last!

        Cheers to another good article Andrew ! :)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon