stories filed under: "fines"
Justice Department Sues Fox Over Failure To Pay Indecency Fines
from the the-definition-of-indecency dept
Remember how Fox was simply refusing to pay an indecency fine issued by the FCC? Well, it appears that the FCC isn't too happy about that and has had the Justice Department file some lawsuits against the various Fox affiliates refusing to pay (it turns out a few affiliates did pay). Before filing the lawsuits, the FCC rejected Fox's appeal without comment, but merely by saying that Fox's appeal to the FCC was 14 pages too long and the company hadn't asked permission to exceed the limit. Fox called this response "offensive," apparently resisting the more hilarious option of calling it "indecent." In the meantime, it looks like Fox will have yet another indecency case to fight in court to go along with the Supreme Court case on indecency that also involves Fox.Filed Under: fcc, fines, indecency
Companies: fcc, fox, news corp
Fox Simply Refuses To Pay Indecency Fine
from the or-there's-that-option... dept
With the Supreme Court already agreeing to review how the FCC determines indecency in a case involving Fox, it appears that Fox has taken a rather aggressive stance concerning a different case where it was fined: it's simply refusing to pay the fine. The FCC originally fined Fox $1.2 million for an episode of "Married by America" that apparently included clips of a stripper with the "naughty bits" pixelated out. After Fox appealed, the fine was reduced to $91,000, covering just the affiliates where complaints were lodged (which seems pretty weak, since reports have shown that indecency complaints are usually sent in by those who didn't even see the show in question, but were alerted to it by lobbying groups that are pushing for more regulation of TV content). Either way, Fox has simply decided not to pay the $91,000, while also asking the FCC to rethink the fine. Somehow, given Kevin Martin's focus on indecency issues, one doubts he'll play along with this. Perhaps Fox is just hoping that it can stall long enough for a new FCC commish to come into power.Anti-Spammer Fined For DNS Lookup Of Spammer
from the ouch dept
Anti-spam activists often need to do quite a bit of hunting to track down the real identity of various spammers. Over the years, spammers have become increasingly adept at hiding from those trying to shine light on their activities. However, when one well-known anti-spammer used some standard whois and DNS lookup tools (the same kind many of us use every day) to find out the identity of a spammer, the spammer sued him... and won! The anti-spammer has to pay over $60,000 in fines, and possibly much more once lawyers' fees are added up. The judge ruled that some rather basic tools suddenly constituted "hacking" even though the details don't suggest any actual hacking. The anti-spammer simply used the tools available to get the information necessary. He didn't need to break through any security or do anything malicious to get the info. If you read the ruling, it sounds like a judge could define plenty of perfectly normal online activities as "hacking." Update: There's a good discussion in the comments, suggesting that there's a lot more going on here than is clear from the article itself. The judge's finding of facts suggest that the anti-spammer did some questionable things, including lying and ignoring an injunction -- which certainly hurt his case. However, others are suggesting that the judge's finding of facts are incorrect and there's much more to this story that will come out on appeal.RIAA Told To Hand Over Data On Cost Per Download
from the constitutionality-questions dept
Earlier this year, a court agreed to examine whether or not the fines the RIAA is asking for in its lawsuits against people accused of file sharing is constitutional (that whole "cruel and unusual" bit). The RIAA, in response, has fought hard to keep from revealing any information about how much a download really costs, but a judge isn't having any of that and has ordered the RIAA in the UMG v. Lindor case to turn over the data.Filed Under: constitutionality, cost, downloads, fines, lindor, riaa
Companies: riaa
FTC Wants More Power To Fine Spyware Companies
from the a-little-punishment-could-be-useful dept
While the FTC has gone after some spyware/malware providers, they're somewhat limited by current laws over how much they can fine those companies. That's why we've seen stories of such firms getting fines that are a tiny fraction of the actual money they made. Now, the FTC is pushing Congress to change the laws to give the FTC the ability to actually punish these firms with large fines, rather than just being able to go after profits. The article linked here frames it as a debate over whether or not Congress should pass anti-spyware laws, but why can't the FTC use current laws concerning deceptive marketing techniques to punish these firms? Does it really need a special separate law that tries to define spyware?Verizon Fined For Pretending That Limited Service Was Unlimited
from the watch-out-comcast... dept
Back in 2005, we noted that Verizon Wireless was following the tactics of others in advertising "unlimited" wireless broadband services, while the truth was they were quite limited. As people later worked out, despite the claim of "unlimited," VZW was cutting off anyone who used more than 5 gigs of data per month. That's pretty limited, actually. When confronted about this, the company tried to argue that by "unlimited" it really meant "It's unlimited amounts of data for certain types of data." And they followed it up with this gem: "It's very clear in all the legal materials we put out." Right, see, that's the legal materials -- the stuff you know no one reads. Yet in the marketing materials it's quite clear that you're claiming "unlimited" and that has a pretty clear meaning. After many such complaints, Verizon Wireless finally started to back down from the false claim of "unlimited" earlier this year. Turns out that it wasn't because of any realization that lying to your customers is a bad idea, but because NY State was investigating the practice. NY has now fined Verizon Wirelss $1 million to be given out to customers who had their service unfairly terminated for actually believing that "unlimited" meant "unlimited." Of course, Comcast might want to start paying attention right about now. While lawyers everywhere are rushing to file lawsuits over its decision to jam broadband user accounts, before that happened Comcast was famous for many, many years for being one of the biggest ISPs to lie about offering unlimited service. It's a story that comes up in the press every year or so, and every year Comcast gives its own doublespeak about how it only cuts off the worst "abusers." However, it's still false advertising to claim unlimited service when that's not what you supply -- and it's hardly "abuse" if people are merely doing what you told them they could do.Filed Under: fines, limited, unlimited
Companies: comcast, verizon
Is $9250 Per Song Unconstitutional?
from the we-may-soon-find-out dept
It's well known that Jammie Thomas, the woman who lost her case against the RIAA for unauthorized file sharing was planning to appeal her decision -- though, we questioned some of the wisdom behind her pursuing the case. She does have a point in questioning the instructions given to the jury, which say that "making available" is distribution when that's still an open legal question with some rulings on both sides. The problem, though, is that the evidence that Thomas did participate in unauthorized file sharing is rather strong, which makes her appeal a lot less sympathetic. It looks like her lawyers may be realizing that and may be recognizing that the biggest point in Thomas' favor is that nearly everyone seems to feel the $222,000 awarded for 24 songs ($9,250 per song) seems rather excessive. With that in mind, the lawyers have now asked the judge to overrule the fine as being constitutionally excessive. You recall, of course, that the constitution has rules against cruel and unusual punishment. Two years ago there was even a research paper that argued the rates set by the law for infringement were constitutionally excessive. A year ago, that theory was first brought up in court. It's tough to see the court going for this argument, but it definitely would make the appeals process a lot more interesting.Filed Under: copyright, fines, unconstitutional
Companies: riaa
