
Music publishers sue an ISP over piracy - sinak
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/music-publishers-finally-pull-the-trigger-sue-an-isp-over-piracy
======
chatmasta
> refuse to suspend, terminate, or otherwise penalize subscriber accounts

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.

~~~
drdaeman
> 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.

~~~
delinka
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.

------
imgabe
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.

~~~
sfk
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.

~~~
imgabe
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.

------
junto
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!

------
andmarios
> 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.

~~~
forrestthewoods
So if enough people do it then it's fine? That's a broken framework for, well,
anything.

~~~
pacmon
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.

------
firepacket
> 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.

------
DeanCollinsNY
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.

~~~
prawn
And the Australian government is keen to help the publishers!

------
digi_owl
A simple out for the ISPs, accept common carrier status.

------
DigitalSea
... 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.

~~~
boomlinde
> 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.

~~~
psykovsky
Yes, it gets them to bankrupcy, from what I've read in the article.

~~~
Zuider
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.

------
click170
> ... 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.

------
Trisell
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?

~~~
ams6110
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.

~~~
firepacket
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.

------
RealGeek
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.

------
al2o3cr
"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".

------
taeric
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?

------
farmdve
This is a serious breach of privacy, releasing user IPs like that.

