Sony Tells SCOTUS That People Accused of Piracy Aren't 'Innocent Grandmothers' (arstechnica.com) 46
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Record labels Sony, Warner, and Universal yesterday asked the Supreme Court to help it boot pirates off the Internet. Sony and the other labels filed their brief (PDF) in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case involving the cable Internet service provider that rebuffed labels' demands for mass terminations of broadband subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringement. The Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case may determine whether Internet service providers must terminate the accounts of alleged pirates in order to avoid massive financial liability.
Cox has argued (PDF) that copyright-infringement notices -- which are generated by bots and flag users based on their IP addresses -- sent by record labels are unreliable. Cox said ISPs can't verify whether the notices are accurate and that terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person may have illegally downloaded copyrighted files. Record labels urged the Supreme Court to reject this argument.
"While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of Internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse," the labels' brief said. "And while Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the Internet for someone else's infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill. By its own admission, the subscribers here were 'habitual offenders' Cox chose to retain because, unlike the vast multitude cut off for late payment, they contributed to Cox's bottom line." Record labels were referring to a portion of Cox's brief that said, "Grandma will be thrown off the Internet because Junior illegally downloaded a few songs on a visit."
Cox has argued (PDF) that copyright-infringement notices -- which are generated by bots and flag users based on their IP addresses -- sent by record labels are unreliable. Cox said ISPs can't verify whether the notices are accurate and that terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person may have illegally downloaded copyrighted files. Record labels urged the Supreme Court to reject this argument.
"While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of Internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse," the labels' brief said. "And while Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the Internet for someone else's infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill. By its own admission, the subscribers here were 'habitual offenders' Cox chose to retain because, unlike the vast multitude cut off for late payment, they contributed to Cox's bottom line." Record labels were referring to a portion of Cox's brief that said, "Grandma will be thrown off the Internet because Junior illegally downloaded a few songs on a visit."
Do you remember what Sony did? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony infected consumers with malware, deliberately, as corporate policy.
I give Sony just as much respect as they give me. None at all.
Re:Do you remember what Sony did? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. CEO should have gone to prison for that one. But no, Sony is above the law.
Re:Do you remember what Sony did? (Score:4, Informative)
Sony did this twice, as I recall. After being hit with a class action lawsuit and forced to do reparations, they just went out an did this a second time. And got hit with a class action lawsuit a second time, too.
Probably most of the decision-makers who were involved in those decisions have moved on by now. It's probably safe to assume that this is a different Sony. Does that mean they deserve a benefit of the doubt? Absolutely not, since all evidence here indicates that the new boss is the same as the old boss.
Sony cares about profits, and will trample families and laws underfoot to achieve them, just like all the other big businesses who are rich enough to get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going after the wrong target. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ISP is the wrong target to go after here. I'll use a car analogy.
The ISP is like the road system. It's how you get to websites on the Internet. The websites, they are like the warehouse/business that provides goods and services.
Therefore, Sony should be going after the websites themselves. You could even argue they should go after the hosting companies, aka the landowner, as accomplices but even that's stretching it. The Landlord isn't responsible for the actions of their tenets.
So basically, fuck Sony.
Re: They are going after the wrong target. (Score:3)
Why stop at the ISP, when you could really make a statement and also go after the power companies who provide the electricity to those homes? Make them live in the stone age! /s
And really, the environment is at fault (Score:2)
All that oxygen and plants and animals and stuff. If those didn't exist, then there would be no infringment. As such, Mother Nature herself should be sued into oblivion.
Re:They are going after the wrong target. (Score:5, Interesting)
From Sony's perspective, the ISP is the absolute *best* target here. Not only is the ISP a bottleneck through which almost-all copyright infringement happens now (thus making it the perfect place to greatly block it), but Sony gets to make some other business incur all the costs and consequences of enforcement, including eating the profit loss, while Sony rakes it in.
Sony doesn't care in the slightest if entire households are harmed because one member infringes in secret, nor if that harm is actually very grievous since Internet access is now essential for daily life (and even having a job) in most of the developed world. If families starve on the streets because of this, they think that's great, as it will serve as an example to all those other evil pirates!
So, they will keep pushing for this with all their might, because they have a mountain to gain and nothing but legal fees to loose. Maybe they will lose a little public goodwill, but they are too rich to care about that.
Re: (Score:1)
From an innocent grandfather,
can you get pirate downloads from legit websites,
I thought I had to use my vpn and torrent.
Re:They are going after the wrong target. (Score:4, Informative)
It depends on your local laws.
Where I live, it's the sharing and not the downloading that's illegal. Rip streams all you want, the issue of legality is on the host... but use a torrent app and you are sharing, which is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the ISPs have demonstrated that they can block it if they want to. Some don't allow P2P apps, most block outgoing email. Legally that makes it a choice to not block file sharing, which then forces them to defend that choice. The old "Linux ISOs" argument probably isn't going to help them there.
Re: (Score:3)
Blocking email is easy - you just block outgoing port 25 connections to anywhere but your own server. You can block some P2P apps by blocking ports as well, but most P2P apps aren't so easy - they
Re: (Score:2)
Often P2P apps are effectively blocked simply by CGNAT.
why enable them? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just don't buy the content.
Don't download it either.
Read a fucking book. Go outside and smell the flowers. You gave them this "power." You can also take it away by not playing.
Best,
Accusations ... (Score:2)
Reset the social contract that is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
While major media companies are wiping their arse with the social contract that is copyright, I do not feel one tiny bit of obligation to uphold my end of it, and I will turn to piracy when and where I can. Screw them.
Re:Reset the social contract that is copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like that and can go there. Another option is charge $1 in year 1 and double it every year they want to keep the copyright. The fee doesn't even hit $1K until year 11, and $1M until year 21. Year 28 would cost $134M. If the IP is really worth it, then the fee would get paid; no pay then no copyright. If the filer is an individual (not a corp), I'd even give them the first 14 years for free; year 15 would cost them $16K as they join the normal schedule for fees.
Accusation = Punishment (Score:5, Informative)
Legally mandated punishment of an individual without being convicted of a crime... because a corporation says they are guilty.
No charges filed. No trial. No conviction. No chance to defend against the accusations.
Just punishment because the corporation says so.
A system that makes the courts unnecessary.
I can't imagine why the courts would not be in favor of this.. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry Sony (Score:5, Informative)
I could care less about your perceived woes. I remember when you infected my computer. Screw you.
Re: (Score:2)
I could care less about your perceived woes.
Really? Why do you care about them?
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't
Speaking as an innocent grandmother (Score:2)
If buying is not owning ... (Score:2, Informative)
then piracy is not stealing, so sit the fuck down Sony et-al.
Are you insinuating my grandmothers a dirty pirate (Score:2)
Are you insinuating my grandmothers a dirty pirate?
Go pound sand
It's for Al (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pirating stuff to train my Al, so it's all good.
So "pirates bad" eh? "Punish the pirates" ? (Score:4, Informative)
Pirates tend to hold a knife between their teeth (Score:2)
What Sony is talking about is copyright infringement [wikipedia.org].
They will never learn (Score:2)
So the accusation is the conviction (Score:2)
SCOTUS should tell them to GFT like Russian Warship.
Contact (Score:2)
Hard truths, depending on where you sit (Score:2)
1) most 'piracy' (I suspect) is not massive commercial grey-copy moneymaking enterprises.
1.1) that said, as a society I think it's morally in our interest to NOT normalize low-level theft, which copying someone else's music, text, video, etc without them being fairly compensated is.
2) yet there are large numbers of such organizations that really do deserve punishment
3) at the same time, the idea that "in defense of our IP" the producer/distributors feel entitled to install harmful software without permissio
Re: (Score:2)
Theft means I take something away from you, so I have it and you don't.
Making a copy of something is fundamentally different from theft. That doesn't mean it's okay, but theft is the wrong word.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you don't get to redefine words to fit your moral parameter.
THEFT is taking something that doesn't belong to you. Even very, very small children understand that.
No previous definition of theft ever included "so that I have it and you don't" until hairsplitting internet lawyers wanted to be able to download things they didn't own and not be called thieves.
(shrug) in fact I agree with you that the best description of software piracy is indeed "illegal copying" but in the vernacular, simplest use of the
Re: (Score:2)
Nope it really doesn't, except in your little self-justifying universe.
Re: (Score:2)
No previous definition of theft ever included "so that I have it and you don't" until hairsplitting internet lawyers wanted to be able to download things they didn't own and not be called thieves.
No previous definition? Find any jurisdiction anywhere that has ever defined copyright infringement as theft. It never happened.
If I'm charged with theft, and I prove that the owner retained possession of the "stolen" property, I'll be acquitted. Obviously.
None of this excuses copyright infringement, but you simply used the wrong word.
Illegal immigration is not arson, and copyright infringement is not theft.