Cox Responds to DMCA 'Three Strikes' ReportSays they've only terminated 'one-tenth of 1% of all users' 11:49AM Thursday Oct 02 2008 by Karl Bodetags: legal · Fileswapping · business · bandwidth · cable · content · Cox HSIYesterday, we directed your attention to a report that stated Cox is using a "three strikes and you're out" policy to disconnect users who receive multiple DMCA copyright warnings. Cox saw the blogging buzz about their policy, and wanted a chance to comment on the public reaction. "I came across your blog post about Coxs DMCA policies and Id like to share some additional information with you to help shed some light on how we handle DMCA complaints," says Cox public relations official David Deliman. Deliman says that to characterize this as a "three strikes and youre out" policy "doesnt reflect the true process" because there's ample warning. As you might expect, Deliman portrays the policy more as a public service effort on Cox's part, saying that in many cases (he raises the example of an inattentive parent), "the customer doesn't even know that the illegal material is on their computer." "This notification is the most helpful thing we can do for the customer," he says. "If they dont realize the RIAA or another organization has identified them as possibly infringing on their copyrights, they might get sued instead," he claims. Cox also insists that the program impacts only a tiny fraction of the Cox customer base. The cable company has sent hundreds of thousands of warnings to customers, but have only had to terminate the accounts of less than one-tenth of 1% of all users. That's because if the initial e-mail notification doesn't work, customers almost always respond when they're placed in a "walled garden." Cox was among the first ISPs to use malware walled gardens to cordon infected users off from the Internet at large until they've cleaned their PC. But by utilizing the same method at the behest of the entertainment industry to tackle pirates (given the DMCA only requires user notification) Cox is voluntarily doing more than necessary while adding to their own support costs. Why? Scaring teenage kids probably helps trim P2P traffic. This was an anti-congestion tactic a Comcast insider told me the nation's largest cable company was also considering, though Comcast public relations denied any such plans when asked over the phone. The entertainment industry has been pushing ISPs to become piracy police (most recently arguing P2P is as bad as spam and viruses), and apparently some cable operators see this as a perfect opportunity to ease congestion on their networks. Still, Deliman insists that Cox doesn't tread lightly into that DMCA-enforcing night. "Please know that we work with customers extensively to help educate them about copyright laws and action is not taken lightly," he says. "In no way do we see ourselves as Internet police, and we make every effort to keep our customers online." While that's well and good, it still doesn't explain why Cox has to mislead consumers. Their warning to customers insists that under the DMCA, "we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access." Again, the DMCA only requires that ISPs forward DMCA warnings on to customers -- Cox's decision to inundate their support staff with the task of P2P policing is voluntary. Related:- RIAA: Anti-Virus Software Should Filter Pirated Content
- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- Comcast Scraps P2P 'Bill Of Rights' Idea
- Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
- Send Your Enemy's Printer A DMCA Warning!
- Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
- Cox Employs 'Three Strikes' DMCA Policy
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
|
 |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: I like this said by Matt :I think this is a perfectly acceptable solution. If you STILL don't get it after 3 warnings ... you need to be removed from the internet to protect you from yourself because you are an idiot. A common sense attitude. The ISP has every right to police their network, even if they are not required to do so by law. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  willp1 Premium join:2003-12-19 Las Cruces, NM | Re: I like this They do not have the right to police themselves. They provide a service they are not police. | |
|  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I like this said by willp1 :They do not have the right to police themselves. They provide a service they are not police. I used to run the night shift of a convenience store. We provided a "service". Does that mean I did not have the right to eject a certain person? Acting very suspicious in the vicinity of my liquor display. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  |  |   heliox Rcp's Love Deep Breathing Premium join:2000-11-28 Irvine, CA clubs: 
| Re: I like this If you suspected or caught me doing something to harm your store - yes.
Your analogy is so flawed, it's laughable.
If you saw me buying a screw driver, rope and tape, and thought I was going to go rob someone - absolutely not.
YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit: December 20th, @02:10AM
| Re: I like this said by heliox :If you suspected or caught me doing something to harm your store - yes. Your analogy is so flawed, it's laughable. It is not an "analogy", it is a fact of law. And I did order a suspicious fellow out of my store. (Twice, actually; once under the circumstances I outlined, and once for making threats to a women who came onto the premises in a distraught state. Had to call 9-1-1 in the last case).
If you saw me buying a screw driver, rope and tape, and thought I was going to go rob someone - absolutely not. If I had solid reason to believe that selling you certain merchandise would facilitate a crime, I certainly could refuse to make the sale. I have refused to sell certain merchandise to certain individuals; and not been reprimanded for it.
YOU ARE NOT THE POLICE. So what. Do an Internet search on "citizen's arrest". -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I like this said by KrK :said by NormanS :I used to run the night shift of a convenience store. We provided a "service". Does that mean I did not have the right to eject a certain person? Acting very suspicious in the vicinity of my liquor display. Been there, done that. As have I. However, I had the support of my "suits" in my case. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |   funchords Robb Topolski Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit: October 2nd, @02:16PM
| said by TK Junk Mail :A common sense attitude. The ISP has every right to police their network, even if they are not required to do so by law. Agreed, it certainly has the responsibility to respond to an outside complaint. That's been part of being an ISP since day one.
As far as copyright cop, the DMCA has forced some duties upon ISPs. We have Cox's side of the story (which sounds pretty reasonable), but we've only heard from one person who was on the receiving end of this. He didn't mention whether Cox made numerous tries to resolve the matter. I'd like to hear more information from people like this. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|  |  |  jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| A user HAS EVERY RIGHT to ignore the letters and risk being sued. These letters might be generated falsely, considering many tactics the AA's use. Second, even if legit, who is to say a user can't take the risk on their own accord. Should the state take your license after 3 tickets? Most states require a substantial amount of points before a license is revoked. On your basis, if a person has three tickets in their life, the state has cause to kick them from driving. Do you ever hear yourself speak, or just pretend to talk and act like you know a lot? It must be a hard job being chastised constantly and being TK JUNK MAIL. | |
|  |  |  |  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000 | Re: I like this "A user HAS EVERY RIGHT to ignore the letters and risk being sued."
Very true. Cox also has every right to do what they are doing. If you don't like their policy then take your business else where. | |
|  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: October 2nd, @11:52AM
| Re: I like this said by swhitney2003 :Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by swhitney2003 :Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act. Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want.
Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation? | |
|  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: I like this said by thevorpal :said by TK Junk Mail :said by swhitney2003 :Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on. A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act. Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want. Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation? Then don't do business with them. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: I like this said by TK Junk Mail :Then don't do business with them. Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.
If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.
Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: I like this said by thevorpal :said by TK Junk Mail :Then don't do business with them. Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.
If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community. Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement. Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   S_engineer
join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL
| Re: I like this " Cox was among the first ISPs to use malware walled gardens to cordon infected users off from the Internet at large until they've cleaned their PC." .....is a scary premise. Who provides the list of malware?...and why wasn't AOL on that list?...and why didn't they protect users from downloading malware in the first place?
This is bad precedent! -- The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| said by TK Junk Mail :Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition. I will accept that for new builds. But you still run into the problem that since no one is ever dealing with a clean slate (Brand new commmunity, no infrastructure currently built) Due to the protections that existed, buildouts have been stopped. Even though the protections have been repealed, the effects remain.
However, I'll ignore that and cut directly to the issue.
I'll even assume that there are two identical internet providers in the area. Company A, and Company B. If Company A, and Company B both decide to implement a policy that would remove a person's ability to communicate on the internet for any reason that is not mandated by law, then it is in effect a direct infringement on the person's freedom of expression.
Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.
The basis by which policy must be evaluated is not 'what is this policy intended to do', but 'what would this policy do if abused'. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc ME
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
edit: October 2nd, @12:58PM
| Re: I like this it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them.
And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: I like this said by hottboiinnc :it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them. And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door. I do run my own network, and I do not enforce such policies. I pass on DMCA notices as required by law, if I try to do more, then I tread into areas which may violate my status as a common carrier.
Should people who violate copyrights be punished? Yes.
Is COX an investigative body? No Is COX a police force? No Is COX the entity initiating the DMCA takedown request? No
Is COX altering their use policy to apply non legislated punishments and expanding the scope of copyright law? Yes. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: I like this Good luck with your business, as long as it lasts. If you don't get eaten up by the xxAA, or the burden of legal fees, I don't know what will.
Not sure what kind of "network" you run, but I can guarantee you that you're not above being responsible for illegal practices taking place on your network and that when pointed out to you and you do nothing.. well.. that's your right to take that risk.
And, unless you are THE top of the food chain on this "network" you run, you still have to answer to the ones up the ladder from you.
-good luck! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: I like this The legal fees are minimal, and were limited to guidance and a policy by which I will comply with local and federal laws. I comply with court orders, and the associated legal reporting requirements.
You seem to think that I'm encouraging any sort of illegal behavior. I am not. What I do is comply with the laws as written, and I act as a transparant middle man.
As for quoting 'network', though it isn't large, it is profitable enough to cover the costs for my post-graduate studies, which, unfortunately, are not inexpensive. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc ME
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | Re: I like this if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: I like this said by hottboiinnc :if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it. I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic with that comment. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   heliox Rcp's Love Deep Breathing Premium join:2000-11-28 Irvine, CA clubs: 
| Re: I like this So do I.
A private organization alleging something to another private organization about my online behavior, is absurd.
If there is anything illegal going on, the ***a should get a subpoena for my usage records, and file suit with me.
The way I see it, COX doesn't like 1) hassle 2) bandwidth usage
It is so much easier to send a couple letters, and flip a switch. -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I like this said by heliox :A private organization alleging something to another private organization about my online behavior, is absurd. It is not. It is the basis for spam complaints, and other abuse complaint; and the reason why Abuse Departments exist.
If there is anything illegal going on, the ***a should get a subpoena for my usage records, and file suit with me. Indeed. If there is an allegation of illegal activity, the matter should be brought to the attention of legal authorities.
In the case that my ISP cut off my Internet over the allegation of committing an illegal act, I'd have my attorney in touch with their legal department: Assuming that I actually have "clean hands". -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  hwy419
join:2008-10-01 Moody, AL
| Permitting infringement on copyright through your network is not illegal. But you should at least treat others as you would have them treat you. Would you like it if others were facilitating infringement on your own copyrighted materials? How would you feel if someone diminished your network profits and livelihood? I believe network admins have an ethical duty to prevent such activity on their networks. Permitting infringement violates the spirit of anti-infringement laws. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  ReneM
join:2003-07-18 Cockeysville, MD | Since when is copyright infringement a crime? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: I like this said by ReneM :Since when is copyright infringement a crime? Since the Congress made it so and when the President signed the bill. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   heliox Rcp's Love Deep Breathing Premium join:2000-11-28 Irvine, CA clubs: 
| Re: I like this Wrong...
It's always at least a civil matter (a tort). 17 U.S.C. 501(b) details the mechanisms by which an owner of a copyright may file a civil suit, and 28 U.S.C. 1338 expressly refers to civil actions arising under the copyright act.
However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319.
www.stason.org -- "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: I like this said by wifi4milez :said by thevorpal :Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community. Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules. It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies.
And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails.
There is certainly no law against being rowdy There most certainly are such laws. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
Which is my point. If such a thing is necessary, then it must be written into law if attempts are being made to enforce it as a law.
Because when you encode it into law, the people are protected by virtue of having representation to enact and repeal that law, as well as oversight and checks/balances.
If it is the right thing to do, then there is no reason why it shouldn't BE a law. But if it is not a law, then it should not be enforced as such. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   wifi4milez Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07 New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: I like this said by thevorpal :said by wifi4milez :said by thevorpal :Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community. Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules. It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies. And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails. There is certainly no law against being rowdy There most certainly are such laws. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct Another bad example on your behalf. You can/will get kicked off a bus/train for non-arrestable offences. For instance, in many cities eating and drinking on a bus will get you kicked off. That is certainly not disorderly conduct, and you will not be charged with anything; just asked to leave. The same applies to rowdy behavior. If what you are doing on the bus/train is interfering with the other passengers (playing music or talking loudly), you will be asked to leave. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. Lets hope we are done here, as you arent going to win this one. -- If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. -Ronald Reagan-
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: I like this Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point.
Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. This is my point.
You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor.
The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request)
The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court)
That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   wifi4milez Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07 New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: I like this said by thevorpal :Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. This is my point. You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor. The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request) The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court) That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing. Yawn, you dont listen very well. You are going to try and twist this any way you can to support your point, even when its clear you are incorrect. I am done here. -- If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. -Ronald Reagan-
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA
 |
|
|
|