p2pnet - rss feed: ISP Cox: RIAA, MPAA copyright cop
p2pnet news view RIAA | MPAA News:- US ISP Cox Communications, which claims to be your friend in the digital age, has proved to be the exact opposite.
It’s caved in under pressure from the entertainment cartels, keel-hauling users accused of being pirates by disconnecting them, in the process apparently adopting the three-strikes-and-you’re out policy recently voted down by the European Parliament.
“Under the DMCA, we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access, until such time as you take the necessary steps to remove the infringing files and to prevent further distribution of copyrighted material,” it says to alleged transgressors.
But, “There are a couple of things wrong with this notification,” says Ernesto in TorrentFreak, going on:
“First of all, and most importantly, the DMCA doesn’t oblige Cox to disable a customer’s Internet access at all.
“They have to notify their customer of the alleged infringement, but the measures they actually take are clearly out of proportion, and definitely not in the best interest of their customers.”
First-time offenders will eventually get their Internet access reinstated, says the story, “but not without being warned that they might lose it permanently if they receive two more takedown requests.”
Ernesto says he contacted Cox’s customer support to verify this, learning when a Cox subscriber receives three takedown requests, “their Internet access will be cut off entirely”.
The story adds »»»
It turns out that Cox doesn’t need legislation to implement a three-strikes policy though. “Cox does in fact have a 3 strikes policy with regards to violations of our acceptable use policy for Internet service. If a customer’s service gets suspended 3 times for the same type of violation the customer risks having their Internet service terminated,” Cox’s customer support told TorrentFreak.
It is of course up to Cox how they handle alleged violations of their acceptable use policy. However, the problem lies in the fact that they act upon accusations made by the MPAA, RIAA and other anti-piracy organizations who employ evidence gathering methods that are shoddy, to say the least. In addition, there is still no law that requires a person to secure their wireless network and there are even routers that enable people to share their connection with outsiders.
We think that Cox clearly overstepped the mark here. Customers might not make as much noise as the lawyers of the entertainment industry, but eventually, they are the ones who bring in the money. Cox Communication currently uses the slogan “Your friend in the digital age.” Some friend.
Stay tuned.
pirates - Pirates killed during shoot-out, September 30, 2008
voted down - Europe parliament vetoes 3 strikes law, September 25, 2008
TorrentFreak - Cox Disconnects Alleged Pirates from the Internet, September 30, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I find it ridiculous that one can be denied service because another company accuses them of doing something.
I also believe that this will lead towards lawsuits as soon as someone is denied service because of bogus claims (probably supported by the EFF and other groups). With this, in theory one could get any Cox customer off the internet by simply knowing what IP address they use. Lets say a moderator on a forum (or anyone else who has access to someone’s IP address) is unhappy with a person posting and has their IP address thanks to their position, rather than just banning them from the forum, they could literally get them kicked off the internet with a few false claims.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
We need a CORPORATE “three-strikes rule”, i.e. after a corporation files three false copyright infingement claims, its offices are disconnected from the internet.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to keep these companies away from the internet, as “harmful entities”.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
It’s no coincidence that cox sells it’s own content. Why would they compete with free when they can ban the competition? It doesn’t take a genius to work out their motives on this subject.
Now the real question: Is this legal? the european commission evidently feels that it isn’t. Disconnecting or impeding connectivity without legal due process sounds like a class action waiting to happen.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
The only answer to this is:
1. Drastic reduction in copyright terms in order to reinstate the public domain. 5 years, NO renewals, and MANDATORY, very expensive registration and filing fees oughta do the trick. That way, the vast majority of “content” will be freed up for re-use or distribution.
2. Widespread recognition that copyright is NOT a “right” in the usual sense of the term — but merely a State-enforced privilege intended to advance “science and the useful arts”.
3. Complete and total boycott of Cox communications and mass migration of their existing user-base to other providers. If there’s no other providers in a given region, someone should create a nonprofit, 501c3 corporation to offer the competition upon which a genuinely “free” market depends.
None of this will actually happen, of course, but hey…..
October 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
being cox customer i see all the time even downloading driver update file slows down after first few MB to dial-up speed. intersting to see them in biggest lobbiest line to our gov too!
-it’s time to look alternative connections to www.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I wish I had Cox so I could cancel it!