Cox Commuinications DMCA Policy Safe Harbors Scum
Apparently if it is broke make it worse because Cox Communications DMCA Policy Safe Harbors Scum. Many are probably unaware that the 32 billion dollar corporation Cox which is many Americans internet service provider, was sued in February of last year.
This was Due to the plaintiff's unhappiness in regards to their 13 complaint repeat infringement termination policy. According to an article written by By Heather Smith-Carra,
"Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision that Cox was not entitled to the safe harbor defense, finding that Cox’s 13-strike policy for repeat infringers was effectively no policy at all, and far less than the termination policy required in order to maintain safe harbor protections."
So After successfully appealing the verdict and weaseling their way out of paying for their negligence, Cox indeed did make a policy change!
The change, However, was not in the benefit or best interest of their userbase! Because who wants to do right by your customer if it costs you money? That's probably why Cox Communications DMCA Policy Safe Harbors Scum!
The policy originally required 13 consecutive violations prior to requiring Cox to terminate a copyright violators internet service. So dodging a bullet in court, rather opting to ensure their clientbase wouldn't encounter such difficulties, they instead reinforced their lack of liability to take action! The new policy in place requires no action whatsoever to be taken EVER! So it is completely at Cox's discretion when and if they'll take action!
"who cares about customer satisfaction, just as long as we can't get sued!"
Having directly dealt with their canned response retardation, my experience is Cox takes about 10 business days to follow up.
The follow-ups received have no thought process behind them. That's because their actions indicate they believe their userbase is stupid. They confirm this when sending a response to customers submitting DMCA Takedown requests indicating they're not responsible and advising they contact the party infringing on their copyright.
So hopefully this article provides America much clarification to the fact Cox very much is responsible for harboring criminality. They aren't unfortunately legally liable to do anything about it however.
If an individual proceeds with legal recourse, advising they obtain resolution through the purported offender is absurd! Furthermore, if the ICANN registry points to your company as the websites origin, who is hosting isn't a factor in liability nor is it negating your ability to take action!
That's Because the infringement is made possible only by Cox allowing their clientbase inbound connections on port 80 and 443. Any end user with basic knowledge of an Apache server knows you can host a website locally on any computer. It is only when an internet source can receive connections that serving websites remotely becomes possible.
Anonymously Identifiable Respond!
Sure, the hacktivist group Anonymous is very much disorganized and has no solidity to their actual directives or purpose. But because Sean Gugerty likes the mask, may as well theme your video around them!
