4

Cox Communications Wins Order Overturning $1 Billion US Copyright Verdict - Slas...

 7 months ago
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/02/20/1635234/cox-communications-wins-order-overturning-1-billion-us-copyright-verdict
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
neoserver,ios ssh client

Cox Communications Wins Order Overturning $1 Billion US Copyright Verdict

Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror

Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! OR check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area

Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 20 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
×
Cox, the cable television and internet service provider, convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of several major record labels that had accused it of failing to curb user piracy, setting the stage for a new trial on the matter. From a report: The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia ruled on Tuesday that the amount of damages was not justified and that a federal district court should hold a new trial to determine the appropriate amount. A Virginia jury in 2019 found Cox, the largest unit of privately owned Cox Enterprises, liable for its customers' violations of over 10,000 copyrights belonging to labels including Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group. More than 50 labels teamed up to sue Cox in 2018, in what was seen as a test of the obligations of internet service providers (ISPs) to thwart piracy.

  • ›

    Cox doesn't have to police any traffic, and section 230 means that it isn't liable for user's traffic.

    'nuff said.

    • Re:

      This.

      As they would say on another (nefarious) discussion board; "Not your private army."

      • Re:

        4chan has been neutered for over ten years. Its only purpose now is to serve as an edgy soft landing spot for disaffected and emotionally disturbed teenagers. A place to feel like they're rebelling without actually changing anything.
        • Good. They mostly punched down at women, racial and sexual minorities, so the less impact on society they have, the better.

      • Re:

        So is the theory that Cox should go after the individual but Cox has deeper, easier pockets?

        Terminating an account has become untenable in the era where multiple people share accounts and each is required to have connectivity for government interaction (both adults and children).

        Odds are most offenders, should it be proven, would be minors anyway.

        Perhaps the Courts will rule on 2024 reality since the Legislature won't act on anything except war.

        • So is the theory that labels should go after the individual but Cox has deeper, easier pockets?

        • Re:

          How did you feel about Iraq 2.0 and Afghanistan?

    • Re:

      Uh. No. Section 230 says that Cox won't be treated as the publisher. That doesn't help it with the copyright issues, which are governed by Section 512 of the Copyright Act (the DMCA). Under Section 512, an ISP isn't liable for the activities of its users if it implements a policy for terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. The claims against Cox were that Cox didn't actually implement that policy, so that liability shield (the "DMCA Safe Harbor") didn't apply to it.

  • Once the music industry started suing people I stopped buying new music. I will only buy used CDs, where there is still a resale market. Just try to resell digital music you've paid for. Don't want that album that U2 and Apple forced on you? Well, you cannot sell it. The music industry wants a lopsided deal where they keep all of the benefits of digital media to themselves and you pay for it all. I say No!

  • Back in the days when the goal was to spook consumers, preventing "piracy" (what a ludicrous, Orwellian word choice) by making an example of a handful of individuals, everyday people were suddenly crucified by media companies out of the blue.

    I guess when you're a corporate entity you have the resources to make the argument that wildly disproportionate damages are not characteristic of a functioning system of justice. A single mom in Idaho can't stand up against Sony quite so much.

  • Oh wait, that didn't work either. If they want to stop piracy then be more convenient than piracy. Those that can't afford it would not have been a sale anyway.

report

Recommend

About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK