Music publishers sue an ISP over piracy(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Music publishers sue an ISP over piracy
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/music-publishers-finally-pull-the-trigger-sue-an-isp-over-piracy
15 comments
> we are converging on the consensus that Internet access is a basic human right
(Off-topic) It's a bit fun we seem to have skipped postal mail, telephony and especially amateur radio communications. Or maybe I'm unaware of those being considered as such, but I'm almost certain the latter isn't considered one, as it's something you (generally, not sure this is universal for every jurisdiction on the planet, huh) need to obtain a license for.
(Off-topic) It's a bit fun we seem to have skipped postal mail, telephony and especially amateur radio communications. Or maybe I'm unaware of those being considered as such, but I'm almost certain the latter isn't considered one, as it's something you (generally, not sure this is universal for every jurisdiction on the planet, huh) need to obtain a license for.
We didn't "skip" anything. I don't believe any 'rightsholder' has ever demanded that all postal mail be stopped because they've accused the mail receptacle of receiving infringing material. Or that telephone service be suspended because someone's listening to infringing material on it. Or that all amateur radio equipment in a household be surrendered because someone broadcast infringing material. (This last one would seem to be the most likely scenario to have occurred, but I believe the HAM folk are generally self-regulating...)
Besides, in the US, the FCC did indeed decide that plain-old telephone service was indeed so important to our society that they created regulations to provide access to service at the same price no matter how distant people lived from the nearest 'central office.' I don't believe anyone has ever had any ability to remove telephone service from a home except the home owner and phone company and only for reasons of non-payment of the bill.
Besides, in the US, the FCC did indeed decide that plain-old telephone service was indeed so important to our society that they created regulations to provide access to service at the same price no matter how distant people lived from the nearest 'central office.' I don't believe anyone has ever had any ability to remove telephone service from a home except the home owner and phone company and only for reasons of non-payment of the bill.
Could you imagine the fallout if the copyright holders were able to get the US mail to stop delivery to your house because you ordered a bootleg CD? Or have the phone company cut off your service, if the suspected copyright violation took place using a dial-up internet service?
The Postal Clause is in Article 1 of the US Constitution.
I'm honestly not sure if that constitutes the US government supporting it as a human right, but I can't think of a more direct way of going about it (aside from waiting to later add it to the Bill of Rights).
To be fair, Congress could have been crap at setting the postal service up and been completely negligent, but that didn't really happen. Most of us hope the Internet is eventually entrenched similarly. Somehow.
I'm honestly not sure if that constitutes the US government supporting it as a human right, but I can't think of a more direct way of going about it (aside from waiting to later add it to the Bill of Rights).
To be fair, Congress could have been crap at setting the postal service up and been completely negligent, but that didn't really happen. Most of us hope the Internet is eventually entrenched similarly. Somehow.
We generally consider things something like human rights that you need in order to participate in general public life. As such, postal mail and telephone very much would be, ham radio not so much.
By this logic they should sue the computer manufacturers, the power companies, the contractors who built the houses the pirates live in. Where does it end? Banks should sue towns for making roads that bank robbers drive on.
It's not the ISP's job to enforce another company's copyright.
It's not the ISP's job to enforce another company's copyright.
Banning roads (or cars) because of bank robberies is my classic analogy when people attack net neutrality like this - I'm glad someone else found it too :)
The proper analogy is this:
There is a city where a road service provider (RSP) builds and maintains all roads. At strategic places, there are road checkpoints where the RSP can block traffic.
Recently, there has been a series of bank robberies. The city has strange laws: Bank robberies are illegal in he city, but hard to prosecute directly. The bank, knowing who participated in the robberies, asks the RSP to block the robbers' traffic.
The RSP refuses, bank sues the RSP.
There is a city where a road service provider (RSP) builds and maintains all roads. At strategic places, there are road checkpoints where the RSP can block traffic.
Recently, there has been a series of bank robberies. The city has strange laws: Bank robberies are illegal in he city, but hard to prosecute directly. The bank, knowing who participated in the robberies, asks the RSP to block the robbers' traffic.
The RSP refuses, bank sues the RSP.
The RSP is in the business of building roads, not apprehending criminals. Nothing about the business of road-building implies that their employees would be trained or equipped to deal with bank robbers.
The analogy falls apart here anyway because bank robbery is a criminal offense and the police are around specifically to deal with it. Piracy is a civil offense. I don't know of any comparable civil case where a private third party is required to enforce a contract they're not involved in.
The analogy falls apart here anyway because bank robbery is a criminal offense and the police are around specifically to deal with it. Piracy is a civil offense. I don't know of any comparable civil case where a private third party is required to enforce a contract they're not involved in.
> Banks should sue towns for making roads that bank robbers drive on.
Please don't associate the violent deprivation of property with voluntary exchange violating state frameworks to promote intellectual publication. It is disingenuous to the argument and hurts arguments on both sides of "piracy is bad". If a company is an enabler of violence and actively work to intentionally promote it, of course they should be liable for their behavior.
Please don't associate the violent deprivation of property with voluntary exchange violating state frameworks to promote intellectual publication. It is disingenuous to the argument and hurts arguments on both sides of "piracy is bad". If a company is an enabler of violence and actively work to intentionally promote it, of course they should be liable for their behavior.
You're not thinking clearly here. If violent deprivation of property is worse than voluntary exchange violating state IP frameworks (this seems like an easy sell to me) then banks have a better case for liability against road-builders who enable bank robbers to transport themselves to and from the bank than music publishers do against ISPs who enable music listeners to share songs with each other.
Your sentence
> If a company is an enabler of violence and actively work to intentionally promote it, of course they should be liable for their behavior.
doesn't respond to anything in the parent comment you're allegedly replying to. No one is saying, or thinking, that road builders work to promote robbery by road users. What they are saying, correctly, is that road builders are enablers of violence that otherwise wouldn't occur (ever heard of "highwaymen"?). They're also enablers of more useful, fruitful, and desirable phenomena.
Your sentence
> If a company is an enabler of violence and actively work to intentionally promote it, of course they should be liable for their behavior.
doesn't respond to anything in the parent comment you're allegedly replying to. No one is saying, or thinking, that road builders work to promote robbery by road users. What they are saying, correctly, is that road builders are enablers of violence that otherwise wouldn't occur (ever heard of "highwaymen"?). They're also enablers of more useful, fruitful, and desirable phenomena.
> then banks have a better case
> doesn't respond to anything in the parent comment you're allegedly replying to
Except it does. You say yourself, banks would have a better case, but when you say it out loud it sounds absurd. The only time a business is an accomplice to bank robbery is when they are intentionally promoting it explicitly, but when their business enables it. To degrade that argument to civil conflicts and then claim ISPs are responsible for their users is more ridiculous.
> doesn't respond to anything in the parent comment you're allegedly replying to
Except it does. You say yourself, banks would have a better case, but when you say it out loud it sounds absurd. The only time a business is an accomplice to bank robbery is when they are intentionally promoting it explicitly, but when their business enables it. To degrade that argument to civil conflicts and then claim ISPs are responsible for their users is more ridiculous.
> when you say it out loud it sounds absurd
Hey, what a funny coincidence. If only there were some well-known style of argument with such a feature.
It could be called something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_absurdity
You seem to have confused an argument against ISP liability for customer behavior with an argument in favor of the same.
Hey, what a funny coincidence. If only there were some well-known style of argument with such a feature.
It could be called something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_absurdity
You seem to have confused an argument against ISP liability for customer behavior with an argument in favor of the same.
My friend sent me a pirated CD in the post from Thailand. Sue the post office! Sue the ship charter company that enabled the boat to sail it here. Sue the printer that made the stamps. Sue the envelope maker. Sue the postman, god damn it!
> notified Cox about 200,000 repeat infringers on its network
One would expect if 200,000 people out of a few million (I guess, I don't know the size of Cox) didn't respect a law, then the law would be under scrutiny.
One would expect if 200,000 people out of a few million (I guess, I don't know the size of Cox) didn't respect a law, then the law would be under scrutiny.
So if enough people do it then it's fine? That's a broken framework for, well, anything.
Actually, I believe there is precedent for laws being struck down for pretty much exactly this reason. I think prohibition and the newly changing attitude against marijuana and the laws surrounding it are examples of this.
If the majority populace is committing illegal acts it's often because they believe the act should not be illegal. I believe that many/most laws exist for the exact opposite reason. Murder is illegal because most people believe it's wrong. So we created a law saying so.
If the majority populace is committing illegal acts it's often because they believe the act should not be illegal. I believe that many/most laws exist for the exact opposite reason. Murder is illegal because most people believe it's wrong. So we created a law saying so.
> Cox is far from alone in blowing off Rightscorp's notices, so it isn't clear why the Atlanta-based provider was chosen as the test case
Not only has Cox has been the most vocal about supporting its users' rights, but aside from a couple TV stations and newspapers they aren't big players in the content producing industry.
Not only has Cox has been the most vocal about supporting its users' rights, but aside from a couple TV stations and newspapers they aren't big players in the content producing industry.
I'm wondering if most American readers here understand that the USA publishers have been trying to do this to Australian isp's for a while.
sorry I'm not up to date on the legal process but its been going on for a while.
sorry I'm not up to date on the legal process but its been going on for a while.
And the Australian government is keen to help the publishers!
A simple out for the ISPs, accept common carrier status.
... Stop us if we have all heard this one before. When will music publishers learn, suing gets you nowhere? I hope all ISP's band together and get behind Cox Communications on this one, suing an ISP just because a music publisher tells them that one of their customers might have infringed on their copyrights.
While we are at it, lets sue car manufacturers for car crashes caused by drunk drivers and lets sue companies like HP for providing the computers that infringers are using to download pirated material? The madness just does not yet. The entertainment industry has far more overreach than it should. People getting their homes raided by SWAT teams because a publisher thought someone downloaded and shared a movie or music album.
Your tax dollars hard at work, people.
While we are at it, lets sue car manufacturers for car crashes caused by drunk drivers and lets sue companies like HP for providing the computers that infringers are using to download pirated material? The madness just does not yet. The entertainment industry has far more overreach than it should. People getting their homes raided by SWAT teams because a publisher thought someone downloaded and shared a movie or music album.
Your tax dollars hard at work, people.
The problem is that there is convergence lately between content producers and ISP-s. The big labels and big ISP usually have enough shared ownership to not make them automatic adversaries.
> When will music publishers learn, suing gets you nowhere?
Maybe they will learn it when that is an indisputable fact. Suing does get them somewhere.
Maybe they will learn it when that is an indisputable fact. Suing does get them somewhere.
Yes, it gets them to bankrupcy, from what I've read in the article.
I don't think that they will go bankrupt. Rightscorp is a loss making shell company which remains in business due to regular 'donations' from copyright holders.
Their remit is to engage in aggressive, quasi-legal practices intended to frighten people away from the sharing of copyright material without having the legal repercussions from using these tactics backfiring on the copyright holders themselves.
While this lawsuit seems crazy and immoral, there is method in Rightscorp's apparent madness and badness, and it is certainly consistent with their other practices. This lawsuit will hit the news just like all their other antics, and create a general level of FUD that will induce people to think twice before they download copyright material, just in case they find themselves at the wrong end of a lawsuit that they cannot afford to defend.
Their remit is to engage in aggressive, quasi-legal practices intended to frighten people away from the sharing of copyright material without having the legal repercussions from using these tactics backfiring on the copyright holders themselves.
While this lawsuit seems crazy and immoral, there is method in Rightscorp's apparent madness and badness, and it is certainly consistent with their other practices. This lawsuit will hit the news just like all their other antics, and create a general level of FUD that will induce people to think twice before they download copyright material, just in case they find themselves at the wrong end of a lawsuit that they cannot afford to defend.
Is Rightscorp a music publisher?
> ... even though the economic consequences of shutting down YouTube accounts is almost always inconsequential
That's an interesting point of view. Another one would be that shutting down too many Youtube accounts like that will tarnish the Youtube brand itself and will encourage the use of alternatives like Vimeo. Any single account may be inconsequential, but becoming ban-happy won't exactly fix the problem either.
That's an interesting point of view. Another one would be that shutting down too many Youtube accounts like that will tarnish the Youtube brand itself and will encourage the use of alternatives like Vimeo. Any single account may be inconsequential, but becoming ban-happy won't exactly fix the problem either.
Interesting that they mention individual IP address. Unless Cox does things differently then most other ISPs. Theoretically this could be more then one subscriber. I know that both the ISPs I have used in my area will issue me a new IP address whenever I unplug the modem for more then 10 seconds.
Couldn't Cox make the case that the information being provided could be from multiple subscribers?
Couldn't Cox make the case that the information being provided could be from multiple subscribers?
They could try to argue that, if it's true. I've had the same IP address from Comcast for over a year, and I've reset my modem many times as well has had some prolonged (many-hour) power outages during that time.
Just for the record, if you want a new IP usually all you have to do is change the MAC address of your router and you'll get a new one.
It's not just the IP address; it's an IP address, date, and time.
So if Cox disconnects its 200,000 users to comply with demands of these idiots, they will loose over $120 million (based on $50/month/user) in annual revenue.
I don't think Cox would simply let it go unless their legal bills could be significant more. I really hope that all ISPs back this and counter sue the music companies.
I don't think Cox would simply let it go unless their legal bills could be significant more. I really hope that all ISPs back this and counter sue the music companies.
"BMG and Round Hill are seeking damages for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and a judicial order requiring Cox to "promptly forward plaintiffs' infringement notices to their subscribers.""
I seriously hope Cox replies with a one-page brief reading only "FUCK YOU PAY ME".
I seriously hope Cox replies with a one-page brief reading only "FUCK YOU PAY ME".
My question for these sorts of lawsuits is relatively simple. Given that companies can spend money on these lawsuits, or on increasing convenient and cheap ways to get content to people. I'm curious which is a better return, dollar for dollar?
This is a serious breach of privacy, releasing user IPs like that.
[deleted]
Combined with the fact that many municipalities only have one option for a broadband provider, the implied assertion that an ISP should terminate service for a customer, likely leaving the customer with no option to connect to the Internet, is an impossible suggestion. As a society we are converging on the consensus that Internet access is a basic human right. Copyright offenses, by one member of a household, should not be reason to suspend or terminate the right of that household to access the Internet. Moreover, no corporation should ever control the right of a private citizen to access the Internet. It's simply wrong.