|A number of industry groups have submitted their opinions on the piracy case between Internet service provider Cox Communications and music publisher BMG, claiming that the district court's decision can have disastrous implications for everyone.
Last year, the court ruled that ISP Cox Communications could be held responsible for the pirate activities of its subscribers. Cox was found guilty and ordered to pay BMG Rights Management $25 million. The ISP then filed an appeal pointing at errors of the district court that might ultimately restrict the public’s access to the worldwide web.
Apparently, the ISP is not alone in this assessment – now several industry players submitted amicus briefs to the court of appeals, expressing their concerns over the prospect that many ISPs and services will unjustly face similar liability claims based on the improper interpretation of the law.
The groups believe that the district court ignored Supreme Court rulings that limit contributory infringement for ISPs. As a result, a number of stakeholders from the industry have also chimed in to support the ISP’s appeal. For instance, the US Telecom Association asked the appeals court to reverse the ruling, because otherwise other service providers would have to disconnect subscribers based on one-sided piracy accusations.
The US Cable Association and the Internet Commerce Coalition also submitted similar arguments, along with digital rights groups the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge. The groups also highlighted the risk the court ruling poses for Internet users at large.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article.
Thursday, November 17th, 2016
|Narrowing the target field will not help us. It just brings us more into the sights of the opposition.|
|Last year, the court ruled that ISP Cox Communications could be held responsible for the pirate activities of its subscribers......... So bye that logic if I sell some one a Cooking Pot and they go home and boil there spouses head in it Im responsible ??????????????|
|posted by (2016-11-18 04:44:33)|
|Wow. So by this logic.... If someone hit you with a car... you can sue the car manufacturer or maybe the car dealership that sold the person the car???|
|posted by (2016-11-18 09:57:44)|
|Breathless 19.. Only if you eat it...Otherwise o.k.|
|Who would of thought being a vegetarian would keep me out of jail ...... now to spread hummas on those dmca notices....|
|"Wow. So by this logic.... If someone hit you with a car... you can sue the car manufacturer or maybe the car dealership that sold the person the car???"|
That ain't all, duderino. You can sue all the manufacturers that made components for the offending car. The outfit that made the breakpads, the break shoes, the tires, the streering wheel. If the driver had breakfast, you can sue the outfit that made his toaster, his coffee, his butter, her jam, etc, because maybe the breakfast played a part giving the driver indigestion, slowing reflexes, etc. Of the driver suffered a nick on his cheek that morning while shaving, and was distracted by it while driving, you can sue his razor company, and the outfit that made his shaving cream, aftershave, you name it. If the driver is a chick and she had shaved her hooha just that morning, and because of some razor burn was distracted while driving and took a hand off the wheel to scratch a wee itch, that's also sueable.And so on. . . it's a complex world we live in today. . . 21st. Century, man. It's never gonna be the same as we used to have.
|This is the same logic the anti-constitution idiots use to sue firearm manufacturers when some scumbag goes on a shooting spree.||
Most Popular Stories