news.buyenne.com

Ein neues Recyclingverfahren sorgte für veränderte Schadstoffwerte im Abwasser. Die Erlaubnis für neue Grenzwerte wurde nun erteilt. (Gigafactory Berlin, Elektroauto)

After a Virginia jury ordered internet provider Cox to pay $1 billion in damages for failing to take appropriate actions against pirating subscribers, shockwaves rippled through the ISP industry.

The verdict, in favor of major record labels including Sony and Universal, was a catalyst for many other ‘repeat infringer’ lawsuits. This resulted in yet more multi-million dollar claims and awards, with more still in the pipeline today.

Meanwhile, Cox did all it could to fight the verdict. This resulted in some small wins, including a recent ruling that the billion-dollar damages calculation needs a re-evaluation. However, the liability ruling stands.

In a final attempt to find the law on its side, Cox petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last year. In essence, it argued that an ISP shouldn’t be held liable simply because it knew that subscribers were pirating, while challenging the assertion that merely knowing about subscriber piracy constitutes ‘willful’ copyright infringement.

U.S. Government Backs Cox

The Supreme Court signaled interest but before a decision to take the case on, the Court asked for the Government’s position on the matter. The request was honored two weeks ago.

The Solicitor General’s amicus curiae brief sides with Cox and urges the Supreme Court to grant the ISP’s position. This isn’t just in the interest of Cox, but also other ISPs and the public at large.

According to the U.S. Government’s view, an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement if it fails to terminate subscribers after receiving copyright infringement notices. The brief states that the verdict of the Court of Appeals could have broad negative implications for ISPs and their subscribers.

The U.S. further argues that Cox’s actions were not willful, as “willfulness” generally requires knowledge or reckless disregard that the defendant’s own conduct was unlawful. Simply knowing about third-party infringements should not be sufficient.

Aside from fully backing Cox, the Solicitor General also urged the Supreme court to deny the record labels’ petition. The labels argued that Cox should be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement because it profited from piracy that it could have prevented.

Record Labels are “Bewildered”, Fire Back at U.S.

The U.S. position gave Cox and other ISPs reason to feel more positive about an eventual turnaround. Grande Communications, for example, wasted no time citing the Government’s position in its final remarks for its own, separate, Supreme Court petition.

In a supplemental filing at the Supreme Court, the record labels characterize the Solicitor General’s recommendation as ‘bewildering’, given the evidence on record. In a direct, point-by-point rebuttal to the U.S. brief, the labels attempt to set the record straight.

Rebuttal

The brief argues that Cox’s contributory liability for copyright infringement is ‘straightforward’ and does not warrant Supreme Court review because Cox would face liability ‘In Any Jurisdiction’.

“Cox was held liable not because it failed to do enough to police infringement, but because it took no meaningful steps to stop infringement and continued serving specific, identifiable subscribers even after receiving explicit notice of their repeat (and often rampant) infringement,” they write.

The record labels focus more on the broader context that, in their view, shows that Cox ‘willfully’ decided to let repeat infringements slide because subscribers earn them revenue.

The ISP did not meaningfully implement a policy ‘for the termination in appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers’ and lost its safe harbor as a result.

“F the dmca!!!”

“This rebuttal is amplified by evidence of Cox’s alleged culpability and disdain for the law, including an expletive quote from an internal communication,” the rebuttal reads.

“Cox kept supplying the means of infringement because it said ‘F the dmca!!!’ and adopted an express policy of prioritizing profits from subscription fees over compliance with the Copyright Act or the DMCA.”

“F the dmca!!!”

The labels note that lower courts have been clear on liability cases like this, and argue that the recent Supreme Court Twitter v. Taamneh ruling , which the U.S. cited, is not relevant in this context.

There is overwhelming evidence for Cox’s willfulness, they say, adding that Cox didn’t contest this finding during its appeal. Therefore, the petition should be denied, contrary to the U.S. Solicitor General’s recommendation.

Grant Our Petition (or both…)

The record labels also disagree with the U.S. when it comes to their own Supreme Court petition, which argues that Cox should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement. The brief reiterates that there is a real split in the lower courts on this matter.

Cox can be held vicariously liable if it has the right and ability to control the infringing activities and a direct financial interest in those activities. According to the Solicitor General, the lower court correctly concluded that this is not the case here.

The labels, however, argue that Cox did profit directly from pirating subscribers, by declining to terminate repeat infringers, which kept the subscription fees coming in.

The labels’ brief ends by asking the Court to deny Cox’s petition while granting theirs, the direct opposite of the U.S. recommendation. However, the labels offer a fallback. If the Court is inclined to accept the Cox case, it should also accept theirs.

“The Court should grant Sony’s petition and deny Cox’s. If the Court disagrees, it should grant both,” the record labels conclude.

—

A copy of the supplemental brief, submitted to the Supreme Court this week by Sony et al. is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

After a Virginia jury ordered internet provider Cox to pay $1 billion in damages for failing to take appropriate actions against pirating subscribers, shockwaves rippled through the ISP industry.

The verdict, in favor of major record labels including Sony and Universal, was a catalyst for many other ‘repeat infringer’ lawsuits. This resulted in yet more multi-million dollar claims and awards, with more still in the pipeline today.

Meanwhile, Cox did all it could to fight the verdict. This resulted in some small wins, including a recent ruling that the billion-dollar damages calculation needs a re-evaluation. However, the liability ruling stands.

In a final attempt to find the law on its side, Cox petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last year. In essence, it argued that an ISP shouldn’t be held liable simply because it knew that subscribers were pirating, while challenging the assertion that merely knowing about subscriber piracy constitutes ‘willful’ copyright infringement.

U.S. Government Backs Cox

The Supreme Court signaled interest but before a decision to take the case on, the Court asked for the Government’s position on the matter. The request was honored two weeks ago.

The Solicitor General’s amicus curiae brief sides with Cox and urges the Supreme Court to grant the ISP’s position. This isn’t just in the interest of Cox, but also other ISPs and the public at large.

According to the U.S. Government’s view, an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement if it fails to terminate subscribers after receiving copyright infringement notices. The brief states that the verdict of the Court of Appeals could have broad negative implications for ISPs and their subscribers.

The U.S. further argues that Cox’s actions were not willful, as “willfulness” generally requires knowledge or reckless disregard that the defendant’s own conduct was unlawful. Simply knowing about third-party infringements should not be sufficient.

Aside from fully backing Cox, the Solicitor General also urged the Supreme court to deny the record labels’ petition. The labels argued that Cox should be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement because it profited from piracy that it could have prevented.

Record Labels are “Bewildered”, Fire Back at U.S.

The U.S. position gave Cox and other ISPs reason to feel more positive about an eventual turnaround. Grande Communications, for example, wasted no time citing the Government’s position in its final remarks for its own, separate, Supreme Court petition.

In a supplemental filing at the Supreme Court, the record labels characterize the Solicitor General’s recommendation as ‘bewildering’, given the evidence on record. In a direct, point-by-point rebuttal to the U.S. brief, the labels attempt to set the record straight.

Rebuttal

The brief argues that Cox’s contributory liability for copyright infringement is ‘straightforward’ and does not warrant Supreme Court review because Cox would face liability ‘In Any Jurisdiction’.

“Cox was held liable not because it failed to do enough to police infringement, but because it took no meaningful steps to stop infringement and continued serving specific, identifiable subscribers even after receiving explicit notice of their repeat (and often rampant) infringement,” they write.

The record labels focus more on the broader context that, in their view, shows that Cox ‘willfully’ decided to let repeat infringements slide because subscribers earn them revenue.

The ISP did not meaningfully implement a policy ‘for the termination in appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers’ and lost its safe harbor as a result.

“F the dmca!!!”

“This rebuttal is amplified by evidence of Cox’s alleged culpability and disdain for the law, including an expletive quote from an internal communication,” the rebuttal reads.

“Cox kept supplying the means of infringement because it said ‘F the dmca!!!’ and adopted an express policy of prioritizing profits from subscription fees over compliance with the Copyright Act or the DMCA.”

“F the dmca!!!”

The labels note that lower courts have been clear on liability cases like this, and argue that the recent Supreme Court Twitter v. Taamneh ruling , which the U.S. cited, is not relevant in this context.

There is overwhelming evidence for Cox’s willfulness, they say, adding that Cox didn’t contest this finding during its appeal. Therefore, the petition should be denied, contrary to the U.S. Solicitor General’s recommendation.

Grant Our Petition (or both…)

The record labels also disagree with the U.S. when it comes to their own Supreme Court petition, which argues that Cox should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement. The brief reiterates that there is a real split in the lower courts on this matter.

Cox can be held vicariously liable if it has the right and ability to control the infringing activities and a direct financial interest in those activities. According to the Solicitor General, the lower court correctly concluded that this is not the case here.

The labels, however, argue that Cox did profit directly from pirating subscribers, by declining to terminate repeat infringers, which kept the subscription fees coming in.

The labels’ brief ends by asking the Court to deny Cox’s petition while granting theirs, the direct opposite of the U.S. recommendation. However, the labels offer a fallback. If the Court is inclined to accept the Cox case, it should also accept theirs.

“The Court should grant Sony’s petition and deny Cox’s. If the Court disagrees, it should grant both,” the record labels conclude.

—

A copy of the supplemental brief, submitted to the Supreme Court this week by Sony et al. is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Apples neues Disk-Image-Format könnte jahrelange Frustration mit virtuellen Maschinen auf Macs beenden. (Apple, Betriebssysteme)

Apples neues Disk-Image-Format könnte jahrelange Frustration mit virtuellen Maschinen auf Macs beenden. (Apple, Betriebssysteme)

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels.

But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits.

Read full article

Comments

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

The American Midwest is home to some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world, enabling its transformation into a vast corn- and soy-producing machine—a conversion spurred largely by decades-long policies that support the production of biofuels.

But a new report takes a big swing at the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, criticizing the industry for causing economic and social imbalances across rural communities and saying that the expansion of biofuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, despite their purported climate benefits.

Read full article

Comments

Today's monkey torture videos are the products of a digitally connected world. People who enjoy watching baby animals probed, snipped, and mutilated in horrible ways often have difficulty finding local collaborators, but online communities like "million tears"—now thankfully shuttered—can help them forge connections.

Once they do meet other like-minded souls, communication takes place through chat apps like Telegram and Signal, often using encryption.

Money is pooled through various phone apps, then sent to videographers in countries where wages are low and monkeys are plentiful. (The cases I have seen usually involve Indonesia; read my feature from last year to learn more about how these groups work.)

Read full article

Comments

Today's monkey torture videos are the products of a digitally connected world. People who enjoy watching baby animals probed, snipped, and mutilated in horrible ways often have difficulty finding local collaborators, but online communities like "million tears"—now thankfully shuttered—can help them forge connections.

Once they do meet other like-minded souls, communication takes place through chat apps like Telegram and Signal, often using encryption.

Money is pooled through various phone apps, then sent to videographers in countries where wages are low and monkeys are plentiful. (The cases I have seen usually involve Indonesia; read my feature from last year to learn more about how these groups work.)

Read full article

Comments

Führende Unionspolitiker verlangen eine grundlegende Reform der Drohnenabwehr in Deutschland und wollen der Bundeswehr die Aufgabe übertragen. (Bundeswehr, Politik)