|Hollywood anti-piracy groups, including the MPAA and RIAA, have just filed their opinions in the case between the US ISP and the music publisher. Of course, the entertainment industry supports the court decision to fine Cox $25m for pirating subscribers.
A year ago, the federal court ruled that Cox Communications could be held liable for the online piracy committed by its customers. The Internet service provider was found guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement and ordered to pay $25m in damages. Of course, the ISP appealed the ruling, pointing at the errors made by the district court (which may restrict the public’s access to the worldwide web in general).
Cox was backed by multiple industry associations, academic institutions, libraries and digital rights groups in this landmark case – all of them submitted amicus briefs to the court of appeals expressing their concerns. In response, BMG found its own supporters – the Copyright Alliance, the RIAA and the MPAA also submitted their opinions on as many as 150 pages to underline that the current verdict should be upheld, because Cox failed to disconnect “repeat infringers” and therefore cannot enjoy safe harbor protection.
The Motion Picture Association of America described online piracy as a massive problem that the rights owners are unable to address without holding intermediaries like Cox accountable. The MPAA reveals that online piracy accounts for 1/4 of all Internet traffic and costs content creators tens of billions of dollars annually.
The most important factor in this case is the “repeat infringer” issue: as you may know, the DMCA requires service providers to disconnect persistent pirates. However, the sides have different interpretation of this term: while Cox believes that disconnection can only be made after obtaining the court decision naming someone an infringer, copyright owners believe that regular takedown notices should count as well.
Hollywood groups sided with BMG and submitted their requests to uphold the district court ruling, which Cox asked to reverse or grant a new trial. This case demonstrates its importance for the entire industry, becoming crucial in determining the future of anti-piracy enforcement in the country. Some believe that it may end up in the Supreme Court.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article. Posted by:
Wednesday, January 11th, 2017
|That name for their company is weird LOL|
|posted by (2017-01-11 20:59:24)|
|How can the government hold a non-infringing company responsible for the misuse caused by others??? That's idiotic, they just provide a service or make a product; it's not up to them what people do with it. That would be like blaming Mcdonalds for an old woman spilling hot coffee on herslef or blaming gun makers for....oh wait. uh. never mind....|
|All the MPAA is gonna do is scare people away & movie will slowly make less & less & not even a early rental system will help|
|Why did the MPAA and RIAA go only after COX and not all the other ISP companies?|
|posted by (2017-01-12 13:16:15)|
|The MPAA collects dues based on how well a film performs in the theaters and the RIAA collects its dues based on "relative revenue levels with large companies paying higher dues". They have a vested interest in forcing ISPs to police media consumers, in their place, so they can access content only through approved, paid channels. Mainly, neither the MPAA or RIAA have to support the cost of that enforcement and court precedent set in their favor allows future regulatory action against ISPs to occur more rapidly(less time litigating and more time saved reaching settlements) and with the weight of the government behind it. In essence, it appears that the MPAA and RIAA want to force ISPs to become beholden to their will like any of their membership paying in an annual tithe.|
|Okay so you walk into a store. There are items on the shelf. You pick up one and leave without paying for it. Then a security device sets off an ALARM. Then security stops you and call the police. Never has the owner of a product sold in a store sued the manufacture for it being stolen from the store. Never has a security sued the product owner for lack of security devices on its merchandise for retail sales. Yet MPAA lobbies for laws all over the world to funnel money into it's pocket. The MPAA gets paid off other peoples work & to talk about stealing from the industry is sweet karma.|
|COX is not Time Warner... hmmm|
Remember to file share on a business account because residential accounts are for repeat offenders... I don't think it is for business accounts. The MPAA and RIAA is always going to get into it because they are special interest groups. Take it back to the 1800s when people used to copy pages of books in a library. Maybe the publisher got involved in it because it was illegally duplicated from research at a library.
|wow mpaa and riaa now ur all bullying an internet company all because u idiots think theyre letting everyone use their service for piracy hello they dont control what people do with the service||
Most Popular Stories