Cox Responds to DMCA 'Three Strikes' Report - Says they've only terminated 'one-tenth of 1% of all users'
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Cox Responds to DMCA 'Three Strikes' Report
Says they've only terminated 'one-tenth of 1% of all users'
(old news - 11:49AM Thursday Oct 02 2008)
tags: legal · Fileswapping · business · bandwidth · cable · content · Cox HSI
Yesterday, we directed your attention to a report that stated Cox is using a "three strikes and you're out" policy to disconnect users who receive multiple DMCA copyright warnings. Cox saw the blogging buzz about their policy, and wanted a chance to comment on the public reaction. "I came across your blog post about Cox’s DMCA policies and I’d like to share some additional information with you to help shed some light on how we handle DMCA complaints," says Cox public relations official David Deliman.

Click for full size
Deliman says that to characterize this as a "three strikes and you’re out" policy "doesn’t reflect the true process" because there's ample warning. As you might expect, Deliman portrays the policy more as a public service effort on Cox's part, saying that in many cases (he raises the example of an inattentive parent), "the customer doesn't even know that the illegal material is on their computer."

"This notification is the most helpful thing we can do for the customer," he says. "If they don’t realize the RIAA or another organization has identified them as possibly infringing on their copyrights, they might get sued instead," he claims.

Cox also insists that the program impacts only a tiny fraction of the Cox customer base. The cable company has sent hundreds of thousands of warnings to customers, but have only had to terminate the accounts of less than one-tenth of 1% of all users. That's because if the initial e-mail notification doesn't work, customers almost always respond when they're placed in a "walled garden."

Cox was among the first ISPs to use malware walled gardens to cordon infected users off from the Internet at large until they've cleaned their PC. But by utilizing the same method at the behest of the entertainment industry to tackle pirates (given the DMCA only requires user notification) Cox is voluntarily doing more than necessary while adding to their own support costs. Why? Scaring teenage kids probably helps trim P2P traffic.

This was an anti-congestion tactic a Comcast insider told me the nation's largest cable company was also considering, though Comcast public relations denied any such plans when asked over the phone. The entertainment industry has been pushing ISPs to become piracy police (most recently arguing P2P is as bad as spam and viruses), and apparently some cable operators see this as a perfect opportunity to ease congestion on their networks.

Still, Deliman insists that Cox doesn't tread lightly into that DMCA-enforcing night. "Please know that we work with customers extensively to help educate them about copyright laws and action is not taken lightly," he says. "In no way do we see ourselves as Internet police, and we make every effort to keep our customers online."

While that's well and good, it still doesn't explain why Cox has to mislead consumers. Their warning to customers insists that under the DMCA, "we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access." Again, the DMCA only requires that ISPs forward DMCA warnings on to customers -- Cox's decision to inundate their support staff with the task of P2P policing is voluntary.

Related:
  1. Send Your Enemy's Printer A DMCA Warning!
  2. Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
  3. Cox Employs 'Three Strikes' DMCA Policy
  4. Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
  5. Small ISPs, Facing Recession, Don't Want To Be RIAA Cops
  6. Tuesday Evening Links
  7. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  8. Cox Scraps App-Specific Throttling Trials
Links: New Topic
Forums »

Matt @ 2nd Oct 11:40AM:
I like this

I think this is a perfectly acceptable solution. If you STILL don't get it after 3 warnings ... you need to be removed from the internet to protect you from yourself because you are an idiot.
--
Linux Haters Unite!

reply
TKJunkMail @ 2nd Oct 11:44AM:
Re: I like this

said by Matt :

I think this is a perfectly acceptable solution. If you STILL don't get it after 3 warnings ... you need to be removed from the internet to protect you from yourself because you are an idiot.
A common sense attitude. The ISP has every right to police their network, even if they are not required to do so by law.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

reply
swhitney2003 @ 2nd Oct 11:45AM:
Re: I like this

Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 2nd Oct 11:51AM:
Re: I like this

said by swhitney2003 :

Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on.
A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

reply
roosr @ 2nd Oct 11:54AM:
Nothing like the coporations turning into parents

Personally, I'm glad that COX (Should be COCKS, dealt with them in Cleveland, Oh and would never do THAT again!) is not available in my area. This type of "proactive" approach to piracy is nothing more than a company "bending over" to the wishes of corporations clinging to failed business models.

The only way to get through the heads of the fat-cats in these situations is to change your providers, and that's it. Nothing else will make a difference, and that's the only language they understand. Until someone stands up against it, and changes providers, it'll be looked at as acceptable.

These bandwidth caps, policing of your internet activities, and whatever else draconian policies they decide to put into place are just meager attempts to avoid building the infrastructure necessary to provide adequate service to their customers. It's the reason that I switched to DSL because of the policies that Comcast implemented. I don't care if I don't use the 250gb cap per month, but I'm not taking a chance, because things change, games come out, services get started, and that eats up bandwidth.

Sat-TV and DSL FTW (until FiOS is available).
reply
swhitney2003 @ 2nd Oct 11:55AM:
Re: I like this

If they get 3 letters and ignore them all, that is there prerogative. When there connection is cut off due to the fact they ignored the letters, then they will react. I have nothing against the walled garden, just a speculation. It is in COX's best interest to do so to keep customers rather than booting them all I suppose.
reply
Deft @ 2nd Oct 11:56AM:
I've gotten one of these..

I recieved one of these letters about 1yr ago.. and they made me fill out a "never do this again" letter.. it was quite fun.. but i lived in Vegas at the time.. and went to a public torrent site.. never again will i get a movie from a public torrent site..
reply
gomer1701ems @ 2nd Oct 11:56AM:
Old letter

My monitor isn't the best, but I think there is a copyright on the picture of the DMCA letter. Can anybody tell me what it is? It must be quite old, as nobody uses Kazaa, Morpheus, or Grokster. Time to update it, methinks.
--
"Don't argue with stupid people; they will beat you with experience."

reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 12:05PM:
They dont' get it...

To MattE, okay, if you had Cox, I would send a DMCA violation notification to Cox reporting you as a violator of my copyright. My copyright you might ask? Nah, doesn't exist, but they don't know that and they don't have the necessary resources to validate the claim that you are violating my copyright. Now, hypothetically, you're really annoying me on one of the boards or I know you personally, I decide to send two more notices. Whoops, you're Internet is now cut-off. Okay, you can live without Internet for whatever period they decide - wait, you telecommute for a living...

AT&T and Cox, who are now crossing the threshold from a service provider to a content provider / manager by making judgments as to what or what does not go through their network should loose their DCMA protection status, period. The purpose of the DCMA violation notification mechanism was to allow for an ISP to cooperate with a copyright holder in good faith and a possible copyright violation by notifying the end customer early on in the process that a possible violation may exist prior to official legal action. If the copyright holder believes they copyright is still infringed upon after the notification, they have plenty of recourse, its called the legal system.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 2nd Oct 12:05PM:
Cox: Screwing you over so the *AAs Don't Have To

No matter how much corporate fellatio the fanbois -both paid and volunteers on this site- perform, the fact that Cocks voluntarily terminates people based on shoddy allegations of copyright infringment is BS. Cox rightfully belongs in the same stink pile as Comcrap for this kind of nonsense.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 12:10PM:
Re: I like this

said by TKJunkMail :

said by swhitney2003 :

Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on.
A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act.
Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want.

Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation?
reply
TKJunkMail @ 2nd Oct 12:12PM:
Re: I like this

said by thevorpal :

said by TKJunkMail :

said by swhitney2003 :

Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on.
A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act.
Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want.

Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation?
Then don't do business with them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

reply
Metatron2008 @ 2nd Oct 12:15PM:
Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

Plz don't allow the big baddies like Cox to stop me! I should be allowed to steal from everyone like the people above are crying to do!

BTW, this is highly sarcastic.

Any of you pirates read your acceptable use policy lately? Any ISP has the RIGHT to terminate you for piracy.
reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 12:18PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

Funny, but what you are missing is, you haven't been confirmed to be a "pirate" of anything. Somebody made a claim about you, could have been false, or they could have just wrote down the wrong IP number.
reply
Metatron2008 @ 2nd Oct 12:19PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

Ip number is a horrible way to go by tracking a pirate.

But yeah, if you're 'accidentally' targetted as a pirate 3 times, you can't bs your way out of it.

People can say you did something when ya didn't once. Once it hits more then twice something screwy is up.
reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 12:21PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

What did you say your IP was again? ;)

Doing a Google search for DCMA False Claims leads to about 40,000 results currently, the first one being an organization that claims 4,000 videos on YouTube violate "their" copyright.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 12:22PM:
Re: I like this

said by TKJunkMail :

Then don't do business with them.
Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.

If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.

Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement.
reply
Metatron2008 @ 2nd Oct 12:23PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

666.666.666.666

Yeah, I'm THAT awesome.

Well like I said, 3 strikes is a great policy. I honestly can't see a person being called a pirate 3 times without being one, unless someone is out to get them.

But then, if someone is out to get ya, they'll do anything...
reply
TKJunkMail @ 2nd Oct 12:29PM:
Re: I like this

said by thevorpal :

said by TKJunkMail :

Then don't do business with them.
Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.

If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you.
However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.

Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement.
Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

reply
pokesph @ 2nd Oct 12:35PM:
better question..

A better question in all of this.. Are the DMCA notices being forwarded to the user (as required by law) so that a user can counter-notice/dispute/respond to them? Nothing I saw in that letter or the reports seen online has mentioned that..
reply
anon @ 2nd Oct 12:52PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

See the problem with the DMCA is it isn't based on you actually commiting a copyright violation though. DMCA can be faked, or falsed.

Another problem is where do you draw the line in the copyright then? Is viewing a website that has borrowed a copyright image make you in violation as well? The fact is DMCA's can be sent out even if there would be no legal case against you which is why it is wrong to cut off someone's internet.

I agree with the principals behind what Cox is doing but the detection of the piracy needs to be actually accurate and something that could actually stand up in court before I am happy with the policy
reply
S_engineer @ 2nd Oct 12:41PM:
Re: I like this

" Cox was among the first ISPs to use malware walled gardens to cordon infected users off from the Internet at large until they've cleaned their PC." .....is a scary premise. Who provides the list of malware?...and why wasn't AOL on that list?...and why didn't they protect users from downloading malware in the first place?

This is bad precedent!
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty

reply
SilverSurfer @ 2nd Oct 12:43PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by Metatron2008 :

I honestly can't see a person being called a pirate 3 times without being one, unless someone is out to get them.
1. Pirate!
2. Pirate!
3. Pirate!

Boom. Done. You're a pirate. I'm sending your ISP a takedown notice for violating my copyright. Hope you enjoy your dial up, pirate.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 12:46PM:
Re: I like this

said by TKJunkMail :

Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
I will accept that for new builds. But you still run into the problem that since no one is ever dealing with a clean slate (Brand new commmunity, no infrastructure currently built) Due to the protections that existed, buildouts have been stopped. Even though the protections have been repealed, the effects remain.

However, I'll ignore that and cut directly to the issue.

I'll even assume that there are two identical internet providers in the area. Company A, and Company B. If Company A, and Company B both decide to implement a policy that would remove a person's ability to communicate on the internet for any reason that is not mandated by law, then it is in effect a direct infringement on the person's freedom of expression.

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

The basis by which policy must be evaluated is not 'what is this policy intended to do', but 'what would this policy do if abused'.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 2nd Oct 12:56PM:
Re: I like this

it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them.

And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 01:01PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by SilverSurfer :

said by Metatron2008 :

I honestly can't see a person being called a pirate 3 times without being one, unless someone is out to get them.
1. Pirate!
2. Pirate!
3. Pirate!

Boom. Done. You're a pirate. I'm sending your ISP a takedown notice for violating my copyright. Hope you enjoy your dial up, pirate.
Maybe it needs to be 3 unique complaints?

PIRATE!!!

Now that's two unique complaints, I believe the proper term that they use in some boards... For the lulz.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 01:12PM:
Re: I like this

said by hottboiinnc :

it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them.

And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door.
I do run my own network, and I do not enforce such policies. I pass on DMCA notices as required by law, if I try to do more, then I tread into areas which may violate my status as a common carrier.

Should people who violate copyrights be punished? Yes.

Is COX an investigative body? No
Is COX a police force? No
Is COX the entity initiating the DMCA takedown request? No

Is COX altering their use policy to apply non legislated punishments and expanding the scope of copyright law?
Yes.
reply
wifi4milez @ 2nd Oct 01:17PM:
Re: I like this

said by thevorpal :

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-

reply
funchords @ 2nd Oct 01:38PM:
Re: Old letter

said by gomer1701ems :

My monitor isn't the best, but I think there is a copyright on the picture of the DMCA letter. Can anybody tell me what it is? It must be quite old, as nobody uses Kazaa, Morpheus, or Grokster. Time to update it, methinks.
Yeah, it's old. © dates are 1998-2004
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
funchords @ 2nd Oct 01:40PM:
Re: I like this

said by thevorpal :

said by TKJunkMail :

said by swhitney2003 :

Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on.
A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act.
Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want.

Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation?
If my computer is spewing spam and virii, then disconnecting it is completely expected. This practice goes back decades and its the right thing to do.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 01:47PM:
Re: I like this

said by funchords :

If my computer is spewing spam and virii, then disconnecting it is completely expected. This practice goes back decades and its the right thing to do.
That is an issue which is distinct from an issue where a company decides to assign additional penalties under the guise of legal requirements.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 01:53PM:
Re: I like this

said by wifi4milez :

said by thevorpal :

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies.

And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails.
There is certainly no law against being rowdy
There most certainly are such laws. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

Which is my point. If such a thing is necessary, then it must be written into law if attempts are being made to enforce it as a law.

Because when you encode it into law, the people are protected by virtue of having representation to enact and repeal that law, as well as oversight and checks/balances.

If it is the right thing to do, then there is no reason why it shouldn't BE a law. But if it is not a law, then it should not be enforced as such.
reply
Qoiz @ 2nd Oct 01:53PM:
fine by me

ive always been a good boy so this will never effect me :)
reply
funchords @ 2nd Oct 01:53PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by AVonGauss :

Funny, but what you are missing is, you haven't been confirmed to be a "pirate" of anything. Somebody made a claim about you, could have been false, or they could have just wrote down the wrong IP number.
Exactly right. Or maybe they have the right file and the right IP address ... and it's still not a violation. So here's the thing that I'm facing.

In order to do some DPI research on very large swarms chosen automatically by size. I'm considering tests involving P2P swarms with people who probably are transferring files without the permission of the copyright holders. My client will never accumulate more than 3% of the file [saved to RAM, not disk] and will never ask for adjoining pieces. I haven't decided yet as to whether I need to send anything, but if I do, it will be on the exact same terms. After 3% is accumulated, the client will dump out.

It's totally experimental. Basically, I'm looking for funny business in very large swarms. This will generate DMCA notices (if not worse).

If I do this, I'll first notify the MPAA and RIAA as well as Comcast and Verizon. But given that these are all big bureaucracies, I'm guessing that the notification won't make any difference until I respond to the DMCA notices with reference to the prior notice and explanation.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
willp1 @ 2nd Oct 01:59PM:
Re: I like this

They do not have the right to police themselves. They provide a service they are not police.
reply
willp1 @ 2nd Oct 02:01PM:
Re: I like this

Next we have machine gun on each corner every one want to be the police. Another four years of another want to be Bush and this country will be police state.
reply
fiberguy @ 2nd Oct 02:03PM:
Re: I like this

Good luck with your business, as long as it lasts. If you don't get eaten up by the xxAA, or the burden of legal fees, I don't know what will.

Not sure what kind of "network" you run, but I can guarantee you that you're not above being responsible for illegal practices taking place on your network and that when pointed out to you and you do nothing.. well.. that's your right to take that risk.

And, unless you are THE top of the food chain on this "network" you run, you still have to answer to the ones up the ladder from you.

-good luck!
reply
funchords @ 2nd Oct 02:03PM:
Re: I like this

said by TKJunkMail :

A common sense attitude. The ISP has every right to police their network, even if they are not required to do so by law.
Agreed, it certainly has the responsibility to respond to an outside complaint. That's been part of being an ISP since day one.

As far as copyright cop, the DMCA has forced some duties upon ISPs. We have Cox's side of the story (which sounds pretty reasonable), but we've only heard from one person who was on the receiving end of this. He didn't mention whether Cox made numerous tries to resolve the matter. I'd like to hear more information from people like this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 02:05PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

Sounds like you're in for some pain and suffering... ;)

Last I had read about their practices, it basically sounds like they just connect and run down the IP list for violations - a pretty low tech method. The irony being is I don't believe they can seed the file themselves without risking losing the copy protection status, but they probably do seed as well in order to obtain more peers but just haven't been called out on it enough. That's why certain organizations on their behalf have planted (read cracked) seeds on other servers in order to entrap (not the legal version) users. A slightly illegal activity in most jurisdictions...
reply
fiberguy @ 2nd Oct 02:08PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

I'm sure they are just "writing down" ip addresses. I'm sure there is no computer program that is capturing the IP address and putting it out on a report, is there?

If someone is "unfairly targeted" of being a pirate, they have a right to go after that party or parties for damages, right?

.. the reason they don't.. (do I have to say it? I think I do..) .. is BECAUSE they ARE pirating or doing something they shouldn't in the first place!

(Disclaimer: there ARE going to be rare occasions where a mistake or two is made, HOWEVER, because of that, it doesn't mean we stop enforcing the rules while letting the many/majority go scott-free. Even then, in this case, those so-called innocent are usually the owner/subscriber of the offending line, and the AUP/TOS clearly states they are responsible for the use of the line which makes them responsible,.. grandma..)
reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 02:17PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by fiberguy :

If someone is "unfairly targeted" of being a pirate, they have a right to go after that party or parties for damages, right?
Probably, and I would also guess by Cox playing middle man, it would also open them up to the possibility punitive, legal and actual damages.

The point I was making is I am almost certain Cox is not validating in any way that the claim is actually true, they are only basing it on the DMCA notification. The purpose of the DCMA notification was never to circumvent the legal process or cause the provider to take action other than to pass it along to the customer - thus removing the pressure for the ISP to identify the customer based on a unsubstantiated claim.

If you believe Cox or any other provider is validating the DMCA notice claim, ask yourself this, how? In order to validate the claim, you actually need to be guilty of the same act that the other party is accusing your customer of committing. I can run a torrent all day long called IronManTheMovieHD.iso - is it the motion picture of some silly pictures from a Halloween event a few years ago?

said by fiberguy :

(Disclaimer: there ARE going to be rare occasions where a mistake or two is made, HOWEVER, because of that, it doesn't mean we stop enforcing the rules while letting the many/majority go scott-free. Even then, in this case, those so-called innocent are usually the owner/subscriber of the offending line, and the AUP/TOS clearly states they are responsible for the use of the line which makes them responsible,.. grandma..)
Agreed, but who elected the ISP to be the judge? A copyright holder that feels their copyright has been infringed upon has plenty of legal recourse to explore - many with substantial penalties.

Their letter is not worded as we are passing along this DMCA violation that we have received and linked to your account. For legal purposes we have recorded this incident and will, upon court order, provide legal verification that you were the operator of this link (IP address) during stated period. If the copyright holder wished to continue with legal action, they would go to the court with their cause for releasing the identifying information and if granted, then the ISP would turn it over.

That, I would have no problem with.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 02:19PM:
Re: I like this

The legal fees are minimal, and were limited to guidance and a policy by which I will comply with local and federal laws. I comply with court orders, and the associated legal reporting requirements.

You seem to think that I'm encouraging any sort of illegal behavior. I am not. What I do is comply with the laws as written, and I act as a transparant middle man.

As for quoting 'network', though it isn't large, it is profitable enough to cover the costs for my post-graduate studies, which, unfortunately, are not inexpensive.
reply
funchords @ 2nd Oct 02:34PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by AVonGauss :

said by fiberguy :

If someone is "unfairly targeted" of being a pirate, they have a right to go after that party or parties for damages, right?
Probably, and I would also guess by Cox playing middle man, it would also open them up to the possibility punitive, legal and actual damages.
Isn't Cox covered by fair-harbor provisions?

said by AVonGauss :

The point I was making is I am almost certain Cox is not validating in any way that the claim is actually true, they are only basing it on the DMCA notification.
... well, 3 notifications, according to Cox -- it's not clear whether a rebutted notification is subtracted from that number, I would hope so ...

said by AVonGauss :

The purpose of the DCMA notification was never to circumvent the legal process or cause the provider to take action other than to pass it along to the customer - thus removing the pressure for the ISP to identify the customer based on a unsubstantiated claim.
Right.

In fact, the ISP cannot validate the DMCA complaint WRT BitTorrent -- you're right in that respect. There is no way that it can. It must trust the accuracy of the complaint (which is usually received some time later, to boot). But does 3 distinct complaints, none of which the user refuted, make enough basis to say, "enough!?"

ISPs have the same problem with spam complaints. The ISP can't prove or disprove reports of spam. But eventually, the number of separate similar complaints tend to add credibility to one another. If an ISP was to ignore these complaints, it would be labeled a rogue, itself.

I honestly don't know what to make of this. Cox used Sandvine (like Comcast still is using). But Cox isn't known for stupid customer service (like Comcast still is known for). That's why I'd like to hear from more users that have been on the receiving end of this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
jc100 @ 2nd Oct 02:48PM:
Re: I like this

A user HAS EVERY RIGHT to ignore the letters and risk being sued. These letters might be generated falsely, considering many tactics the AA's use. Second, even if legit, who is to say a user can't take the risk on their own accord. Should the state take your license after 3 tickets? Most states require a substantial amount of points before a license is revoked. On your basis, if a person has three tickets in their life, the state has cause to kick them from driving. Do you ever hear yourself speak, or just pretend to talk and act like you know a lot? It must be a hard job being chastised constantly and being TK JUNK MAIL.
reply
wifi4milez @ 2nd Oct 02:50PM:
Re: I like this

said by thevorpal :

said by wifi4milez :

said by thevorpal :

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies.

And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails.
There is certainly no law against being rowdy
There most certainly are such laws. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
Another bad example on your behalf. You can/will get kicked off a bus/train for non-arrestable offences. For instance, in many cities eating and drinking on a bus will get you kicked off. That is certainly not disorderly conduct, and you will not be charged with anything; just asked to leave. The same applies to rowdy behavior. If what you are doing on the bus/train is interfering with the other passengers (playing music or talking loudly), you will be asked to leave. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. Lets hope we are done here, as you arent going to win this one.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-

reply
hottboiinnc @ 2nd Oct 02:57PM:
Re: I like this

if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it.
reply
RARPSL @ 2nd Oct 03:11PM:
Re: I like this

said by TKJunkMail :

Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
Even if Franchises are no longer exclusive, there is the problem that the cost of wiring an area that already has coverage makes the attempt not cost effective. The old company has the benefit of their having wired the area when they were exclusive and thus has a major advantage. The only possible solution is to make the "Last Mile" a separate company who sells access to ANY Cable Company who wants to service the area.
reply
battleop @ 2nd Oct 03:13PM:
Re: I like this

"A user HAS EVERY RIGHT to ignore the letters and risk being sued."

Very true. Cox also has every right to do what they are doing. If you don't like their policy then take your business else where.
reply
axus @ 2nd Oct 03:36PM:
Re: I like this

I don't want real laws being established just to prevent pseudo-laws. The real problem is the DMCA provisions that make Cox think it needs to take these steps. Less laws, not more, please.
reply
axus @ 2nd Oct 03:40PM:
Re: fine by me

Maybe they don't like you going to NBC.com and ESPN.com when you could be bundling cable service with your internet, instead. If everyone thought like that, things would be worse for you.
reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 03:48PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by funchords :

Isn't Cox covered by fair-harbor provisions?
Absolutely. In this context what I am contending is by taking the DCMA violation notice at face value as fact and further promoting the accusation by altering your service level based solely on the DMCA notification they could/should be also opening the door to the liability. I don't even want to comment on the part of the letter that states "we are obligated"...
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 03:55PM:
Re: I like this

said by axus :

I don't want real laws being established just to prevent pseudo-laws. The real problem is the DMCA provisions that make Cox think it needs to take these steps. Less laws, not more, please.
That is why the attempt to make this a law, if such a law is necessary (Which I do not believe that it is), should be done.

In my opinion the laws that protect copyright in the US are sufficient, and excess penalties are not necessary. Nor are they compatable with the concept of copyright in the first place.

Copyright is a privledge that we the people, grant to the authors of creative works. It is not some default state that creative content innately exists in without it being granted by the public. These laws should be aimed at encouraging new creative works, and still allowing deriviative creative works to be inspired. A major issue here is that people have forgotten that copyright is a temporary limitation that we place on ourselves.

A pseudo-law enforced by a corporation is anaethma to the concepts of the Constitution of the United States.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 04:07PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by funchords :

In fact, the ISP cannot validate the DMCA complaint WRT BitTorrent -- you're right in that respect. There is no way that it can. It must trust the accuracy of the complaint (which is usually received some time later, to boot). But does 3 distinct complaints, none of which the user refuted, make enough basis to say, "enough!?"
Here is the issue, why does the ISP need to say 'enough'? If they comply under DMCA, then it is an issue between the user, and the complaintant, not the ISP and the user. Forwarding DMCA requests are trivial.

Now, here is my issue:

Let's say I publish something from my computer. Someone who dislikes what I have stated can make a complaint against me using DMCA as an attempt to silence my opinion.

Now, I have the option to refute the DMCA complaint. Except that the burdon is now on me to prove not only that the complaint is false, but that my response is truthful under threat of perjury (This liability does not hold to the complaintant, a VERY important fact).

I would NEVER file a rebuttal to a DMCA request without first consulting an attorney. Even if I was 100% certain that I had commited no copyright violations, I would never put pen to paper under penalty of perjury in something as complex as copyright law.

So, if I do not want to pay an attorney, my options are to let COX remove my website, or take it down myself. Either way, that complaint against me stands.

It would be trivial for 2 other complaints to be filed by a malicious person, and it would be anything but trivial for me to contest those complaints.

Thus, my opinion could be silenced easily and I would have no recourse but through expensive legal options.

The alternative, which is what COX should be doing, is once the complaint has been filed, they pass it along, and that is it. Then if the complaintant wishes to continue the legal fight, it is THEIR burdon to prove that I have commited infringement and not MY burdon to prove that their claim is false.
reply
Jason Levine @ 2nd Oct 04:09PM:
Re: I like this

My only question for Cox would be: Do they consider any DMCA request as counting towards the "Three Strikes" regardless of the DMCA request's validity.

Suppose I had uploaded a music file entitled "Oops Brittney.mp3" to a P2P network. Now let's suppose that this file wasn't the Brittney Spears song "Oops, I did it again!", but audio of me talking about the downfall of popular music. (In other words, something I own the rights to.) Now Brittney's record label might that file, assume it's a copyrighted song, and send my provider a DMCA notice. Would that notice count as "Strike 1" even though there's no validity to it? If that audio was Part 1 of a 5 part series, could the record label send in 5 separate DMCA notices and knock me offline?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause

reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 04:11PM:
Re: fine by me

said by Qoiz :

ive always been a good boy so this will never effect me :)
That avatar of yours. Did you draw it yourself? Or should I notify your ISP?
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 04:14PM:
Re: I like this

said by hottboiinnc :

if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it.
I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic with that comment.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 04:30PM:
Re: I like this

Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point.

Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence.
This is my point.

You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor.

The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request)

The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court)

That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing.
reply
thevorpal @ 2nd Oct 04:31PM:
Re: I like this

Not only that, but remember that a DMCA request in and of itself is not evidence of any wrongdoing, but merely a procedural step.
reply
Jason Levine @ 2nd Oct 04:38PM:
Re: I like this

Exactly. It is a very important procedural step, but it is a step nonetheless. And it is a step that is often abused by copyright holders or people who don't like criticism. (e.g. the recent Olympics DMCA requests over the fact that their logo appears for a millisecond on a protest video on YouTube.)

If Cox is taking users offline for merely receiving these requests, they are opening their users up to abuse by overzealous copyright holders (going beyond normal rights protections) and/or by people who can't take criticism. Any of their users who speak out will get a flurry of DMCA requests and Cox, following the 3 Strikes policy, will take the user offline. Critic silenced!

In the legal world, this is called a SLAPP lawsuit and is illegal. Cox could effectively be making "eSLAPP-ing" standard policy.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause

reply
hwy419 @ 2nd Oct 04:39PM:
Re: I like this

Permitting infringement on copyright through your network is not illegal. But you should at least treat others as you would have them treat you. Would you like it if others were facilitating infringement on your own copyrighted materials? How would you feel if someone diminished your network profits and livelihood? I believe network admins have an ethical duty to prevent such activity on their networks. Permitting infringement violates the spirit of anti-infringement laws.
reply
wifi4milez @ 2nd Oct 04:40PM:
Re: I like this

said by thevorpal :

Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point.

Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence.
This is my point.

You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor.

The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request)

The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court)

That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing.
Yawn, you dont listen very well. You are going to try and twist this any way you can to support your point, even when its clear you are incorrect. I am done here.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-

reply
funchords @ 2nd Oct 05:26PM:
Re: Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want!

said by thevorpal :

Here is the issue, why does the ISP need to say 'enough'? If they comply under DMCA, then it is an issue between the user, and the complainant, not the ISP and the user. Forwarding DMCA requests are trivial.

.
.
.

Thus, my opinion could be silenced easily and I would have no recourse but through expensive legal options.
Okay, you've persuaded me. This is what the subpoena process is for.

It does look like the poster who wrote »Re: I like this was right about the additional liability.

There's a real-live case of DMCA abuse against Fair Use going on right now, in fact ... Obama Mashup Ad Pulled over "Copyright" Protest. NBC better hope Obama doesn't win.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
anon @ 2nd Oct 05:29PM:
Loss of Common Carrier Status

COX should loose their common carrier status if this continues. If they switch to playing police then by definition they loose their common carrier status. This then opens them to civil lawsuits for damages. All it will take if for one person with who likes to sue (And an attorney who likes to make money) to make it real painful for COX.

Cox should be a middle man and no more. The "management" of their network is limited solely to the bits flowing over it and not to the content. The post office is not allowed to cut off your mail becuase some company does not like that your mailing out copyrighted content. It is up to the copyright holder to use the legal system to enforce it's copyright. The only way your mail can be cut off is if the court tells them to.

Many people forget that in order to be protected from lawsuits COX needs to be an independant common carrier. This means they need to be blind to the content. The phone company cannot shut off your phone service because you sing happy birthday to your family too many times (The tune is copyrighted). If they were to do this they would loose their common carrier status as a neutral third party.

This is not a matter of COX responding to overuse of their network, but a matter of them taking action based on the alleged complaint of third party. By doing this they are no longer a neutral third party. This is grounds for nullifaction of their status as a common carrier. Once that is gone, the first person to be wrongly cut off can sue COX for damages that arrise from the loss of their service.

Filtering will only result in more encrypted data. Decrypting data is a violation of privacy laws. You can't open someone's mail to check to make sure the letter is legal. All the xxAA's of the world will do is push seeding sites offshore to sites that do not respond to copyright violations. These sites will then host fully encrypted content to select users. The xxAA's cannot violate the law (i.e. decrypt content) to prove their side. Only the cops with a suponea can do this in the civilian market. (Military, NSA, CIA, etc. could care less what tv show you are watching).
reply
anon @ 2nd Oct 06:56PM:
Someone is misleading someone

While that's well and good, it still doesn't explain why Cox has to mislead consumers. Their warning to customers insists that under the DMCA, "we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access." Again, the DMCA only requires that ISPs forward DMCA warnings on to customers -- Cox's decision to inundate their support staff with the task of P2P policing is voluntary.


Someone's misleading someone, and I don't think it's Cox. In order to avoid financial damages from the copyright holder, a service provider has to (amongst other things):


(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—
(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(A)
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.


If the offending material "resides" on a service providers network, they have to remove access to it. If that material is on your PC, access to your PC has to be removed.
reply
mondoz @ 2nd Oct 07:13PM:
This policy doesn't make much sense to me.

Three 'strikes', and you're out.

What constitutes a 'strike'? Just being accused of violating the DMCA? Anyone can accuse anyone of doing that.
In many cases, the RIAA doesn't have anything more than an IP address and some screenshots as 'evidence' against filesharers.
Since Cox doesn't say how much 'evidence' is required to constitute a 'strike' against someone, I'm wondering if they require any 'evidence' at all.

That brings me to my next point. It doesn't appear that Cox even asks to hear the customer's response to the accusation.
The DMCA takedown notices are like subpoenaes; they don't make someone guilty, it just accuses them of being guilty and require the person to defend themselves against the charge.
It seems that Cox counts any accusation as a 'strike' against the user.

If I am incorrectly accused of violating someone's copyright, Cox counts that as a strike against me. Is Cox going to spend the resources to find out if this accusation has any merit?

There is such a thing as 'fair use' in this country, and it doesn't sound like Cox is taking that into account at all.
We also have an 'innocent until proven guilty' policy in this country. Cox's stance seems to be 'innocent until accused'.

Now, if the three 'strike' policy was reworded to read "Three 'convictions and you're out"... Then at least they'd be terminating the user's access based upon a ruling that might carry some weight.
reply
russotto @ 2nd Oct 08:32PM:
Re: Someone is misleading someone

If the offending material "resides" on a service providers network, they have to remove access to it. If that material is on your PC, access to your PC has to be removed.


This is a basic misunderstanding of the DMCA. Information on your very own PC in your own home does not reside on your ISPs network, it resides on your network. Your ISP is providing services covered under 17 USC 512(a), not 17 USC 512(c). 17 USC 512(a) does not have a takedown provision.

See also the Verizon v. RIAA case, where the RIAA attempted to force ISPs to disclose P2P users identities under another provision which only applies to 512(c) service providers and not 512(a) service providers.

"...any notice to an ISP concerning its activity as a mere conduit does not satisfy the condition of Section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) and is therefore ineffective."
reply
braynes @ 2nd Oct 09:11PM:
A lie is a lie

Well if they want to work with and help customers then why do they need to lie and pretend it was the "AA" and not them that are the enforcer of the disconnect?
reply
NormanS @ 3rd Oct 12:56AM:
Re: I like this

said by willp1 :

They do not have the right to police themselves. They provide a service they are not police.
I used to run the night shift of a convenience store. We provided a "service". Does that mean I did not have the right to eject a certain person? Acting very suspicious in the vicinity of my liquor display.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
NormanS @ 3rd Oct 01:04AM:
Re: I like this

But the DMCA does provide for you to contest the notice. And if you do contest the notice, I am reasonably sure that will force the **AA's hand; either put up (sue), or shut up. I should think that Cox would consider a response from their user challenging the DMCA notice as a "counterstrike". Well, they should consider it as such.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
NormanS @ 3rd Oct 01:08AM:
Re: I like this

Wouldn't you file a counter notice? There is a Cox web page with the instructions for filing one. You basically challenge the assertion by the record label that they have given Cox accurate information; swat the ball back into their court.

The thing is, don't ignore the letter; especially if the complaint has incorrect details.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
Jason Levine @ 3rd Oct 09:38AM:
Re: I like this

That was the part I was questioning. Does Cox immediately give you a strike when the DMCA request comes in? Or do they wait until you don't file a counter-notice? If it is the former, then you could have someone who gets two legitimate strikes against them taken offline because of a third, bogus strike. If it is the latter, then their system is more acceptable.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause

reply
ReneM @ 3rd Oct 12:04PM:
Re: I like this

Since when is copyright infringement a crime?
reply
TKJunkMail @ 3rd Oct 12:06PM:
Re: I like this

said by ReneM :

Since when is copyright infringement a crime?
Since the Congress made it so and when the President signed the bill.
reply
anon @ 4th Oct 12:43PM:
justice

This whole debacle reminds me of the guy that used to buy up old copies of AutoCad with their licenses and then auction them on eBay. It seems that AutoDesk (copyright holders of AutoCad) filed complaint after complaint with eBay claiming that this guy was selling pirated software, when in fact he was able to prove that it was not. After a month or so of eBay receiving these complaints from AutoDesk, the guy's eBay account was permanently terminated with no opportunity for appeal. He had previously provided proof that the software was not pirated and on numerous occasions, that proof was demonstrated to eBay's satisfaction, yet ultimately, his account was still terminated. There is no doubt that AutoDesk didn't like the fact that this guy was selling older versions of AutoCad at a steep discount with respect to the newest version, but should that give them the right to bully eBay into terminating his account? There is legal recourse in the cited case, but what recourse does a Cox customer that's been falsely accused 3 times of copyright infringement have?

There are many among us that think that it's ok for a few innocent people to suffer, as long as the bulk of those punished, are guilty. This idea is an affront to the ideas that spawned the founding of this country. The founding fathers considered that the injustice of punishing one innocent man, outweighed the injustice of letting 1000 guilty men walk free.

O.O.
reply
heliox @ 5th Oct 06:14AM:
Re: I like this

If you suspected or caught me doing something to harm your store - yes.

Your analogy is so flawed, it's laughable.

If you saw me buying a screw driver, rope and tape, and thought I was going to go rob someone - absolutely not.

YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE.
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

reply
heliox @ 5th Oct 06:20AM:
Re: I like this

So do I.

A private organization alleging something to another private organization about my online behavior, is absurd.

If there is anything illegal going on, the ***a should get a subpoena for my usage records, and file suit with me.

The way I see it, COX doesn't like
1) hassle
2) bandwidth usage

It is so much easier to send a couple letters, and flip a switch.
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

reply
heliox @ 5th Oct 06:22AM:
Re: I like this

Wrong...

It's always at least a civil matter (a tort). 17 U.S.C. 501(b) details
the mechanisms by which an owner of a copyright may file a civil suit,
and 28 U.S.C. 1338 expressly refers to civil actions arising under the
copyright act.

However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A
copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement
is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a
retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the
offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319.

www.stason.org
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

reply
Kaltes @ 18th Oct 02:14PM:
Cox is lying: a lawyer's view

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE:

Cox has no obligation or liability whatsoever regarding their user's use of their internet service for alleged copyright infringement. This was already litigated and decided in the RIAA v Verizon case. ISPs cannot be held liable for their users, and therefore are not forced to police those users.

What Cox is doing here is completely voluntary. They are lying to their customers, and to BBR.

How is it that they have terminated only 0.1% of users when we all know that hundreds of times that number of users are actively using p2p software to download copyrighted material? The likely answer: because Cox is selectively targeting only certain kinds of downloading for its own selfish gain. Cox is using its effective monopoly on high speed internet to leverage its cable tv business.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:

I have Cox cable service and internet. The cable tv jack in my room does not work, so I simply download the shows I want to watch. I have had my internet cut off twice in a row for downloading the last 2 episodes of Entourage. I have been downloading for years, including Entourage, without anything happening from Cox. When I called them to get my service turned back on, I was told that this policy has existed and been enforced for years: a blatant lie. It didn't happen for years, but now twice in a row? Also, it does not happen when downloading music, movies, or non-cable tv shows, only Entourage.

We should take advantage of the community here at BBR to establish WHICH shows/movies/music and WHICH p2p software is triggering Cox's policy. I think if and when we do so, you will find that this is NOT a widespread policy, because if it was, MOST of Cox's users would get cut off. Instead, I think what is going on here is that Cox, which knows FULL WELL that it cannot be held liable, is using supposed DMCA claims as a scalpel to target only particular p2p activity that it deems is hurting its CABLE business.

My cable internet service is in my own name, and the Cable TV service is in someone else's name, so to Cox, I appear to have only internet and no TV service, when in fact I pay for both. This might be an additional criteria they use in selecting who gets cut off, as a means to coerce people into paying for cable TV service. Note the download that got me in trouble: a television episode of a CABLE channel I would ordinarily be paying COX to watch on tv.

Therefore, I believe that:

1. COX is selectively targeting users only for certain kinds of downloading that it believes is impacting it's own profits, and

2. COX is blatantly lying about it's selfish motives by trying to pass the blame for its actions on to the copyright holders.

3. COX has a monopoly on cable service in a large area here, so I cannot simply switch to another provider. DSL internet is extremely inconsistent and grossly inferior in this area, albeit cheaper.
reply
KrK @ 20th Dec 01:52AM:
Re: I like this

said by NormanS :

I used to run the night shift of a convenience store. We provided a "service". Does that mean I did not have the right to eject a certain person? Acting very suspicious in the vicinity of my liquor display.
Been there, done that.

Sad thing is, if you do throw someone out, they call Corporate and complain (and lie their asses off) and you find out OH, you didn't have the right to do jack squat :mad:

You're responsible for the inventory loss, but you're also not allowed to "inconvenience" a thief. Gotta love suits.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply
NormanS @ 20th Dec 02:08AM:
Re: I like this

said by heliox :

If you suspected or caught me doing something to harm your store - yes.

Your analogy is so flawed, it's laughable.
It is not an "analogy", it is a fact of law. And I did order a suspicious fellow out of my store. (Twice, actually; once under the circumstances I outlined, and once for making threats to a women who came onto the premises in a distraught state. Had to call 9-1-1 in the last case).
If you saw me buying a screw driver, rope and tape, and thought I was going to go rob someone - absolutely not.
If I had solid reason to believe that selling you certain merchandise would facilitate a crime, I certainly could refuse to make the sale. I have refused to sell certain merchandise to certain individuals; and not been reprimanded for it.
YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE.
So what. Do an Internet search on "citizen's arrest".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
NormanS @ 20th Dec 02:09AM:
Re: I like this

said by KrK :

said by NormanS :

I used to run the night shift of a convenience store. We provided a "service". Does that mean I did not have the right to eject a certain person? Acting very suspicious in the vicinity of my liquor display.
Been there, done that.
As have I. However, I had the support of my "suits" in my case.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
NormanS @ 20th Dec 02:15AM:
Re: I like this

said by heliox :

A private organization alleging something to another private organization about my online behavior, is absurd.
It is not. It is the basis for spam complaints, and other abuse complaint; and the reason why Abuse Departments exist.
If there is anything illegal going on, the ***a should get a subpoena for my usage records, and file suit with me.
Indeed. If there is an allegation of illegal activity, the matter should be brought to the attention of legal authorities.

In the case that my ISP cut off my Internet over the allegation of committing an illegal act, I'd have my attorney in touch with their legal department: Assuming that I actually have "clean hands".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply
funchords @ 20th Dec 11:42AM:
Re: I like this

said by NormanS :

In the case that my ISP cut off my Internet over the allegation of committing an illegal act, I'd have my attorney in touch with their legal department: Assuming that I actually have "clean hands".
Assuming your ISP is also clean...
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through.

reply
banatello @ 25th Dec 08:41PM:
This Is Funny...

An ISP does have the right to monitor the amount of traffic going on their network, I fully agree with that. The thing I don't see anybody having an issue with is that not only are they checking what you send but they seem to be checking your PC. So all e-mails, pictures, home movies, and what ever else you may send is being checked by this ISP. Besides that they seem to be able to monitor your personal PC (that you bought), and not one person in this string seems to have an issue with having big brother looking into everything you do. This in turns breeds current mind set that the world protects the stupid people. Personal I don't think the IPS has a right to look at what data you send just the amount. I think the government needs to stay out of people homes and worry more about fixing all the other things that are wrong currently, I mean there is more important things then what I keep on my personal PC.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC