ISPs May Have to Boot Users For Mere Accusation of Piracy Last week we noted how Cox was headed to court this week in a case that could have a pretty massive impact on the broadband industry. The case centers around Cox's decision to stand up to copyright troll Rightscorp, which ultimately resulted in BMG and Round Hill Music suing Cox for purportedly not doing enough to stop piracy. That's ironic, since as we've noted for years, Cox has actually done significantly more than many ISPs when it comes to threatening users over copyright infringement.

But Cox has likened these companies' settlement-demand behavior to harassment, and has failed to forward on these complaints or hand over subscriber data. They've also refused to participate in the entertainment industry's "six strikes" initiative. As such Cox is being made an example of by the entertainment industry. The ISP is also being used to try and push forth the RIAA's long-standing belief that section 512(i) of the DMCA requires that ISPs boot repeat offenders off of their networks. And so far, it looks like the RIAA has a pretty good shot at it. The Judge in charge of the case recently rejected Cox Communication's claims it was protected by the safe harbor protections of the DMCA. This week he released his full opinion (pdf) on that decision, noting that ISPs are only protected if they make a serious effort to thwart copyright infringement. Judge Liam O'Grady notes that while Cox did state they'd kick repeat offenders off the network (which we first reported on in 2009), those users were allowed to sign back up without penalty: quote: The record conclusively establishes that before the fall of 2012 Cox did not implement its repeat infringer policy. Instead, Cox publicly purported to comply with its policy, while privately disparaging and intentionally circumventing the DMCA’s requirements. Cox employees followed an unwritten policy put in place by senior members of Cox’s abuse group by which accounts used to repeatedly infringe copyrights would be nominally terminated, only to be reactivated upon request. Once these accounts were reactivated, customers were given clean slates, meaning the next notice of infringement Cox received linked to those accounts would be considered the first in Cox’s graduate response procedure. As such, O'Grady states that Cox did not have a "reasonably implemented" copyright protection regime in place to qualify for DMCA safe harbor protections, which prevent an ISP from being held liable for user behavior on the network. Cox has argued that you can't kick people off the network based solely on accusations of infringement, since those accusations are often IP-based and haven't always been reliable. O'Grady appears to ignore this entirely. Note the case continues this week, and Cox could still win, but the ISP isn't off to a great start thanks to O'Grady's interpretation of the law. Most already had agreed that losing your broadband connection because you downloaded the Led Zeppelin discography was heavy-handed and troubling. As such, an entertainment industry win that reads 512(i) as demanding that ISPs boot users off the network based on the mere accusation of infringement could set a horrible precedent. As such, O'Grady states that Cox did not have a "reasonably implemented" copyright protection regime in place to qualify for DMCA safe harbor protections, which prevent an ISP from being held liable for user behavior on the network. Cox has argued that you can't kick people off the network based solely on accusations of infringement, since those accusations are often IP-based and haven't always been reliable. O'Grady appears to ignore this entirely. Note the case continues this week, and Cox could still win, but the ISP isn't off to a great start thanks to O'Grady's interpretation of the law. Most already had agreed that losing your broadband connection because you downloaded the Led Zeppelin discography was heavy-handed and troubling. As such, an entertainment industry win that reads 512(i) as demanding that ISPs boot users off the network based on the mereof infringement could set a horrible precedent.







News Jump WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 46 comments



kdwycha

join:2003-01-30

Ruskin, FL 27 recommendations kdwycha Member Still.... ... don't see why Internet Service Providers have to delegate resources and money to play net nanny for another corporation (trade association).



An ISP should be just a dumb pipe. This should be an issue between the serving authority (infringing file sharer), the copyright offender (the downloader) and the MPAA, RIAA etc.



Seems like the **AAs are not making enough money for their CEOs and such to drive Bentleys and want the ISPs to perform 50% of the work on behalf of them for free.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID 20 recommendations karlmarx Member It's very simple solution Two words.. Title-II. That's ALL it will take. If the ISP's are common carriers, like the phone company, they CANNOT be held responsible for what happens any more than the phone company can be help responsible for two people talking about a crime. Period. End of issue, end of DMCA, end of *AssAss'es. A common carrier has ZERO obligation to act as a nanny for the fat cats. A common carrier moves bits from one place to another, what those bits are have NO BEARING on the company.

This lawsuit could actually end up screwing the **AssAss'es more than they know. If Cox is able to argue the ARE a common carrier, then the entire suit would be thrown out.

MooJohn

join:2005-12-18

Milledgeville, GA 13 recommendations MooJohn Member An Accusation Shall Be Enough That might as well be the entire premise of the DMCA. Nobody has to be found guilty of anything. People should have their internet disconnected because a company's automated tool decided that their IP address was hosting a file that matches their beloved content. The companies could be spewing lists of random IPs and ISPs are supposed to put full faith in their determinations and cancel the accounts in question.



It's the politician's fault though. They made a law they didn't understand, having it written by lobbyists for the content industry that was trying to prop up their dying business model. They couldn't keep people from making legitimate archive copies of their movies (like for a home media server) so they had the government declare it illegal to create a tool capable of doing just that.



BTW, you can't call me a file-sharer. I have never downloaded a move because I don't like anything that Hollywood has turned out in the past 20 years. You could offer them all as free downloads and I don't want them! Same goes with music; I have my 70s, 80s, and 90s mp3s (most ripped from CDs I own) and have zero desire for anything that has come since then. You can keep your ClearChannel-endorsed, auto-tuned garbage. neufuse

join:2006-12-06

James Creek, PA 8 recommendations neufuse Member dumb question but if I play a song over a phone to someone else who records it, shouldn't the phone company boot me also? ha... quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA 5 recommendations quisp65 Member Net Neutrality...?!! So a family could lose the internet access because of mere accusations!! Wasn't the internet determined necessary in todays world?



Net Neutrality with the exception of "guest networks", Hola, Tribler, and poorly controlled kids!

caster

@sysvana.com 5 recommendations caster Anon Just go full pre crime where we can lock you up with out a trial for life Just go full pre crime where we can lock you up with out a trial for life just as some robot system said that you may do something. cmarslett

join:2006-11-22

Pflugerville, TX 4 recommendations cmarslett Member Not much comes from my pocketbook, but that is stopping now. I don't intend to buy any more stuff from BMC and Round Hill Music. Even from artists my son associates with. Sorry, they need to find new ways to sell their music! This is beyond my level of tolerance for assitude.

Flyonthewall

@teksavvy.com 4 recommendations Flyonthewall Anon Land of the Free My butt it's free. Prove guilt first, or GTFO. Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06 2 recommendations Wilsdom Member Anonymization Would be nice if the ISPs did some kind of VPN or onion routing for all customers to provide a basic level of privacy, but of course this will never happen since the populace now believes the "right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches" means it's their right to be secure from not being searched