Cox Lies To Customers; Says DMCA Requires Disconnects For File Sharing
from the that's-flat-out-false dept
While there's been a big push among the entertainment industry to get ISPs to adopt a "three strikes" policy that would have ISPs disconnect internet access to users accused of unauthorized file sharing, with them losing their account permanently after the third time. This is highly problematic for a variety of reasons, starting with the rather flimsy evidence that the entertainment industry relies on, combined with the idea that the accused are considered guilty with no process of appeal. Furthermore, there's no clear reason why an ISP should act as a copyright cop for the entertainment industry. In fact, many ISPs trashed such proposals, and told the entertainment industry where to shove them. More recently, the EU Parliament rejected such laws mandating three strikes policies, noting that they were clear violations of individuals' freedom.One of the reasons that the entertainment industry had been focusing on Europe, Australia and Canada for such programs was that it seemed that US ISPs had made it clear that they would never adopt such a three strikes policy. Think again. Apparently cable giant, Cox, has quietly adopted a three strikes policy and is kicking users off the internet if they're accused of file sharing.
Even worse, the company is lying to customers about it, claiming that the DMCA requires them to do so:
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.This is a complete fabrication. The DMCA has no such requirement. What's really odd is that Cox had built up a reputation as being the customer friendly broadband ISP that took customer service very seriously. Yet, here they are, cutting users off, lying to them about why and relying on the entertainment industry's weak evidence to harm its customers. It's a shame. In the meantime, we'll extend an earlier challenge to Cox. Will it accept a three strikes policy of its own? If it cuts off users three times and the evidence is shown to be false, will it provide free internet access to that user?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disconnects, dmca, three strikes
Companies: cox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
deathly fear of a dumb pipe
They are DEATHLY afraid of becoming "a dumb pipe provider". You can consider EVERY ACTION they take to be a way to try and save themselves from that fate.
Why? Profit margins. The "triple play" is all about insanely fat profit margins. "Dumb Pipe" service has nothing on the voice and video margins.
Funny thing is, every survey out there says they only want their ISP to be a dumb pipe provider. A simple utility. There is nowhere near as much profit in providing internet as there is in providing voice and video. The "war on piracy" has nothing to do with warez. It's all about stopping the proliferation of free video. They have already lost the war to keep people on voice service. Customers drop like flies from that service as they look at their landline bill vs cell phone bill.
Now with torrents gaining in popularity, the people that really like to watch tv are finding that they can have so much more control over their viewing experience if they just torrent their shows instead of sticking to broadcast schedules. Tivo ain't got nothing on the piratebay when it comes to gaining control of your viewing experience.
And that means more and more people are just going to get rid of the cable bill. They will either catch their shows on a service like Hulu (uses bits! some control, still a broadcast medium tho) or p2p networks (uses more bits! absolute control).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: deathly fear of a dumb pipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: deathly fear of a dumb pipe
Where I live our choices are COMCAST or COMCAST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: deathly fear of a dumb pipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: deathly fear of a dumb pipe
They got served a DMCA takedown for copyrighted material in their IP space, since they couldn't delete the file they did the next best thing, broke the pipe.
Simple clean and a interesting interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: deathly fear of a dumb pipe
Since when have lies just become "interesting interpretations"? (except to liars, of course)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max has shifty eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
had this discussion with them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what is illegal about an ISP disabling the service of a user it believes is in breach of the ISP/user contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what is illegal about an ISP disabling the service of a user it believes is in breach of the ISP/user contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one said it was illegal. For a lawyer who insists on interpreting everything literally, I'm surprised you would make such a mistake.
The issue was lying to their users, and doing something likely to tick off users, and then pretending, falsely, that they're required to by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without more facts than presented here, it is not possible to reasonably conclude that the ISP is protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. Therefore, to say the ISP is "lying" seems a bit premature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It makes more sense to presume the ISP is covered by the safe harbor protections, since the exemption was put in place specifically for online service providers.
Therefore, to say the ISP is "lying" seems a bit premature.
No, there is nothing in the DMCA that requires an ISP to disconnect a user. Therefore, when Cox Cable sends out messages saying that the DMCA requires them to disable internet access, they are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Exactly Is The Issue?
VOTE McCain 2008 - Its time to change Washington back to what it once was and once again could be, again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Exactly Is The Issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Exactly Is The Issue?
What, Washington doesn't have enough of you liars already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Exactly Is The Issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Occam's razor says:
2. **AA finds out about it.
3. **AA sends DMCA takedown notice to Cox.
4. Cox IS legally forced by the DMCA to remove the account until the infringing files are gone.
Am I missing something here?
It all sounds pretty straightforward to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Occam's razor says:
Second, Cox is not hosting the content. If it were on their servers it would be one thing, but it isn't. They are only providing the pipe. The DMCA applies not even a little bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Occam's razor says:
To the contrary, your claim that "Cox IS legally forced by the DMCA to remove the account until the infringing files are gone" seems pretty twisted to me. How long have you worked for the **AA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If by the actions of their terminating scum bag torrent downloaders who think it is their god given right to affect every other customer on the network. God, because my service is execelent because of it.
Screw the scum bags, let them be terminated. I get execelent downloads/uploads/uptime because of strict adhearance to abuse policy.
This falls under. Fk you downloaders, you quite obviously don't give a fk about your fellow internet users woth you hogging the bandwidth. Why should I give a fk about you that your finaly getting what you truely deserve.
Dan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Screw that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell me, Dan, how the show will play out when you're accused of file-sharing. It's not like the RIAA hasn't been wrong before. Pre-litigation letters have been sent to printers for cripes sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Secondly, the article is about a company making false claims to their customers to act in any way they see fit. If they want to terminate a user, that is fine but they shouldn't be making up excuses. They are trying to play both sides of the fence by terminating the service but acting like they are required to legally (which they aren't).
Lastly, complete NON-torrent traffic can also affect your download/upload times. Do you also hate slingbox users? Online gamers? Web site hosters? Apparently, the Internet is for Dan and Dan only.. everyone else out of the pool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And just what do you use the internet for, Dan? I'd just bet that you do some downloading and that you're a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and btw cox didnt ur mother teach u not to lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox isnt the only one.
needless to say my brother was pissed but since he has moved and gone to college he no longer has anything to do with that ISP thankfully but even better the first thing he said after this came up was he would never buy anything from HBO again.
In the past he has bought many HBO shows on DVD and he has HBO on TV but missed an episode and was torrenting it cause he wanted to see it. Many people now look at torrenting something they watched on TV or missed an episode of as like using Tivo, how can you be "stealing" media they showed for free on TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No logic?
Like post #12 said, how is someone supposed to remove the infringing files if they no longer have internet access?
Then again, this is the same "business logic" that tells people to check a website if their internet connection is down or to send an e-mail to customer service if they can't access their e-mail account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot.
Dan, go pound sand you ignorant ghit. Let the people that understand what is going on worry about this.
If an ISP can step in and:
1. Monitor Your Traffic (they can)
A. Keep records of it
B. Decide who can surf what (Can you spell China?)
C. Identify persons of different political idealogies. Whilst we live in a free society now, who knows what is coming down the pike. If the wrong people come into power, all of a sudden your friends and neighbors could be hauled off to the friggin gulag. Think that's nuts? 30 million dead Soviet detractors can't be wrong (and could you imagine how many Stalin or Hitler would have killed if they had access to ppl's search records?) Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot.
This is classic, made my entire office laugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot.
I'm not saying that downloading copyright materials should be allowed, but lying to consumers with false validation is wrong in every "better business" aspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COX NETWORK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox and ISPs in general...
No, I grant there is no "right" to cable, however, it is a service I purchase, I pay for it. I pay for it in advance, at least a month, possibly for a year. There is a due process of law before one may remove ones property without recompense. There is also the tenant here in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty. Cox is assuming guilt based on accusation... that is wrong. This is nearly as bad as another company suspending service because one is using too much of it...
Essentially, the company is infringing on our rights... exactly how, depends on which way they go about it. But to brank one guilty without any recourse, and to punish us monetarily... without a hearing... is wrong on several fronts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox as ISP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cox as ISP
Of course you would say that. They're probably paying you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All ISPs should follow Cox's lead
I say good ridance to scumbags!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All ISPs should follow Cox's lead
I think you should be kicked off the internet. See how much sense that makes?
Do you think they are sharing home movies and their own songs. Nope, we all know what they are doing.
Let's see...they're updating their games, downloading Linux distros, creative commons works, or any of the other perfectly legitimate uses for the technology. Simply because a technology can be (and is) used for illegal purposes is not a good enough reason to ban its use.
it is called THEFT (you can label it copyright infringment if you want but it is stealing profits from companies and artists).
We call it infringement because that's what it is. Also, you can't steal profits - you can't take something that was never received. And in some cases (certainly not all), infringement can actually lead to further sales for the content producer.
Thanks for playing, come back when you have some idea what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All ISPs should follow Cox's lead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no legal presumption that an ISP is covered by a safe harbor. It is a legal defense that it must plead and then establish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're going to play Devil's Advocate and assume they aren't covered by the safe harbor exemptions. Have fun with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MLS, that's simply incorrect, and I would think that you would know that.
I know you like to come here and pretend to be the wise legal expert, but now you've reached the point where you are stating false things.
The DMCA safe harbors were established specifically for such cases. The legislative history is clear, as is the case history involving the DMCA. To claim otherwise is either ignorance or willful misleading.
Considering that you position yourself as an expert, I'm going to have to argue that it would be the second one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then please enlighten me and your readers with a citation to case law holding that the DMCA establishes an initial presumption in favor of an ISP, and that the burden of proof/persuasion resides with a copyright holder to overcome the presumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're intentionally misrepresenting the issue. The statement you initially made was that
"Without more facts than presented here, it is not possible to reasonably conclude that the ISP is protected by the 'safe harbor' provisions of the DMCA."
While you are correct that the burden of proof resides on the ISP to show that they meet the requirements for safe harbor provisions (if a lawsuit was filed), you don't provide any real reason to assume they wouldn't meet those qualifications.
The situation is similar to determining fair use - while it is a defense, a person can make reasonable assumptions about what would qualify as fair use based on what the law says and its intent. Likewise, it is a reasonable assumption that an ISP (especially a large provider like Cox) would be protected by the safe harbor provisions, since the whole point of the law was to protect ISPs from the infringing activities of its users.
And a quick look at Cox's website shows that they are meeting the requirements for safe harbor protections. Unless you're also going to require proof that Cox actually follows through on the takedown notices before a "reasonable" assumption can be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under the specific cirsumstances described it is incorrect and misleading to even suggest dishonesty, much less declare it as was done here, on the part of the ISP. Dare I even mention the possibility (and likely probability) that the ISP, which certainly has superior knowledge of the pertinent facts, has determined that it may be at risk of losing safe harbor and adopted measures to mitigate the risk? I certainly do not have any of the pertinent facts know to the ISP, and surely the same can be said of the article's author.
As for my "enlightment" invitation, it was responsive to a declarative statement by Mr. Masnick that caselaw contradicts my immediately prior comment. Given that techdirt has repeatedly stated that its goal is to provide accurate and timely information based upon research by itself and others, it seems to me that if Mr. Masnick is correct it should not be particularly difficult to provide a citation to one or more specific court opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where in the DMCA does it state that an online service provider is required to disable the account of an accused infringer?
Dare I even mention the possibility (and likely probability) that the ISP, which certainly has superior knowledge of the pertinent facts, has determined that it may be at risk of losing safe harbor and adopted measures to mitigate the risk?
If that is the case (which I doubt), then they could have easily phrased that in their message to the customers. They didn't. Instead, they stated that they were required by the DMCA to disable accounts. That isn't true, therefore it's a lie. Cox Cable is attempting to use the federal government as the scapegoat for their own "three-strikes" program by lying to their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I take it that the following would be acceptable to meet techdirt's "non-lying" test:
"Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (hereinafter referred to as the "DMCA"), and specifically as set forth in Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code, we have certain obligations we must meet in order to avail ourselves of the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions. "Safe harbor" basically means that so long as we meet our aforesaid obligations we will not be held monetarily liable for contributory copyright infringement due to the actions of one or more of our customers.
Based upon some of the uses you have made of our services, we have determined that such uses may expose us to contributory infringement liability. In order to mitigate the potential loss of our "safe harbor", we have decided it is both prudent and in our mutual best interests to temporarily suspend your access to our services until such time as you have taken the necessary steps to remove files infringing the copyrights held by others and to prevent further distribution of any copyrighted material without the prior written consent of the copyright holder(s).
We regret the inconvenience, and look forward to reestablishing your sevice once you have advised us in writing that you have taken and completed the steps as aforesaid."
...or at least words to this effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Under the DMCA, we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access"
This statement is a lie. Period. It doesn't fail the "techdirt non-lying test", it fails the incredibly basic "is this the truth" test. I find it amazing that this is so difficult for you to grasp. Your reworking of the message passes the truth test only if it is, in fact, true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using just your quote, it could be changed to read "Under the DCMA, we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your internet access if we want to keep from being sued and paying out $$$ as damages because you seem unable or unwilling to quit sharing copyrighted materials. Might we suggest you quit breaking the law so that we can get back to running an ISP and you can get back to using the internet once more."
Of course, I could always shorten the quote by eliminating all after "access" so that it is less argumentative and accusatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect the main reason why Cox Cable is lying to their customers is because "the government makes us do it" sounds better than "you violated our terms of service".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meet two overall conditions: (1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of
terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat
infringers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a situation of this magnitude
The issue is that this ISP has chosen to get into the rapidly growing business of data mining and outright spying on its users. You may argue that it's fair for Cox to terminate or suspend its services at any time for any reason, and you'd be right. You may also argue that they are clearly lying when making the claim that they are legally bound to take that action, and you'd also be right. But what bothers me, and what seems to bother many other commenters is the degree to which Cox is monitoring our internet activity. I saved the html file that Cox displayed during the suspension, and here is copy of their instructions for removing the suspension:
Step 1. Remove the copyrighted files. the following files must be deleted from your computer:
[here it lists metadata of the infringing file, in my case it was a folder, notice it does not list the folder's location or its individual files:]
Title: Teaching Company
Filename: TTC - Emperors of Rome
Filesize: 762259288
Step 2. To avoid any future infringement, we highly recommend turning off the sharing feature of your peer-to-peer software, such as KazAa, Morpheus, Grokster, etc. For specific instructions on how to disable the feature for your specific software, consult with the software vendor.
Step 3. After deleting the files and disabling file sharing, you may click here [html link to a javascript command] to reactivate your service. Please note that reactivating your connection without cleaning your computer first may result in additional suspensions or permanent termination of your Cox High Speed Internet service
In step one, I already pointed out the roughness of its hash data, and though it seems likely to produce false positives it did not in my case, the really disturbing part is in the specific language of the next two steps. In step two, it tells you to turn "off the sharing feature" of your file sharing software...the logical inconsistency is obvious, and the mere use of file sharing software is NOT in any way illegal or in violation of any ISP's terms of use. But the real kicker is in step 3, when it states that you must not only cease downloading or sharing the files (I was at a mere 12% when my friend's service was suspended) but you must also delete it from your computer entirely. This of course seems okay, except that you must accept the idea that Cox will remotely search your computer's file system. So what we've learned is that this particular ISP not only monitors your every action online, compares it to a blacklist generated by...well we don't know who it was generated by frankly, but they will also monitor all your files regardless of whether they are shared online or not.
The irony of the entire situation, of course, is that the files I was downloading are not available to be purchased from the owners of the copyright. It was clearly a bootlegged, recompressed group of mp3's probably stripped from video. The file sizes, number of files, etc was entirely different than what you'd get if you purchased the download legitimately. When a copyright owner goes after a bootlegger, do they also go after people who obtain those counterfeit products?
I had also just upgraded to the newest version of uTorrent, there may be a connection there as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
viva la p1r4t3!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NEED THIS BE DISCUSSED ANY FURTHER???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NEED THIS BE DISCUSSED ANY FURTHER???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about bit torrent
i live with family members. as of this day i started using bittorrent. i hope they dont.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P
Cox's commercials are lame. And, ON DEMAND could've been a lot cooler.
If you want to stop sharing, stop it at its source: pregnancy.
Insert law abiding citizen comment below...
...which doesn't make sense if you call yourself an American. Arrogant rebel scum. Remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COX LIES
I was told that my phone and internet service would be in someone elses name. The installer disconnected my phone, internet service, and he installed the Cox service. I spent 3 hours on the phone with Cox, and they too informed me that even though the person whose service was being installed did not live at my residence, I could not cancel the order.
The installer told me how to lie to Cox to get service back to my name. This whole ordeal went on for 5 hours.
I then called the company who I was origanilly contracted with, and had them restart my phone service and DSL. I then called the FCC and filed a complaint - a very lengthy process.
My 3rd call was to the top brass at Cox who were horrified at my story. They put my cable service back in my name. This whole ordeal lasted a month.
I paid no fees for reinstallation.
I have to tell you that the installer, the peons at Cox had me so upset the day this happened that I cried for hours. My friends were horrified while I explained what was going on the day this took place.
I continue to use Cox digital service, and am very happy with it, and hopefully this is something that won't happen to anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DAN IS MY BIT$^^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DAN IS MY BIT$^^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]