ISP to Supreme Court: We shouldn’t have to disconnect users accused of piracy : technology

[–] Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world 400 points 3 months ago (7 children)

They’re 100% only doing this for money, but still, nice to see them in the right for once.

[–] Godort@lemm.ee 178 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 82 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Task failed successfully.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 133 points 3 months ago (6 children)

A lot of it is the sheer bureaucracy of chasing down actual pirates and weeding them from people who just happen to be on the same IP address.

If one guy visiting an apartment block downloads a torrent from a public connection, what is ATT supposed to do? Shut down Internet to the entire building?

This is an undue burden for ISPs, even if the content isn't living in a gray zone of legality.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 63 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah IP owners really want to have all the benefits of ownership with none of the drawbacks. After lobbying for and receiving a blank check to be able to rent seek indefinitely, they are constantly acting to outsource any cost of detection and enforcement of "their" property. Disgusting how goddamn entitled they are.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

this is why everyone should pirate literally anything they can, even if they don't particularly want it.

er, with a few very gross exceptions that shouldn't exist.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 229 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Internet shutoffs should require a court order. Not some emails that are "this person did a bad 🥺🥺🥺 no proof but can you please take our word for it 🥺🥺🥺🥺"

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 198 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Internet shutoffs shouldn't be a thing, outside of non-payment or legitimate abuse. If I do something illegal, they should have to sue me, not shut off my internet.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 102 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, they don't disconnect a criminals phone service because they committed a crime and made a phone call. It makes no damned sense.

[–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Only happens as a matter by court order and is a limit on the person not on the corporations. Though if found out after by the court it can be ordered terminated. And you will face further punishment. But this is levied against the person. As in "You are not allowed to do a thing and if we find out you did the thing you will face further punishments." Corporations should not have the responsibility or ability to determine any ones eligibility. They are a businesses not a government.They are responsible for their own tos and should never be anything more.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you do something illegal, you should be arrested.

Copyright infringement lawsuits are a far cry from bomb threats or the like.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Not everything that is illegal is punishable by arrest

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[+] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 147 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Their game is just to try to make the ISPs liable; they don't actually want it enforced. In fact, failure to enforce is the feature. They paint the ISP as complicit in the piracy then sue the ISP for hundreds of millions in damages hoping for a no-fault settlement. That's a much better revenue stream than suing someone for 10k who can't pay it.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 122 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Absolutely the correct stance, nothing dirty about it. At this point, for better and for worse, the Internet is a basic necessity. Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not water baloons, but some companies will cut off your water if you're sharing it with a neighbor. (especially if that neighbor had their water cut off for not paying a bill)

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 78 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which is absolutely ridiculous since you are paying for the water that you are sharing.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

I know you know this but it bears saying explicitly: it's because pretty much all laws are out there to enforce property first. Humanity is secondary. We all know implicitly that it's not illegal to share your water because it's unethical. It is illegal because making it illegal protects the water company's profits, humanity be damned.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Garbage collection services dislike when people throw their garbage in neighbor's cans even when the neighbor is paying for the larger can (e.g. the disposal volume being used). This has led to some garbage distribution piracy alongside recycling collection crews.

In case you wanted some cyberpunk dystopia in your cyberpunk dystopia.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Or Nestle asked your water utility to disconnect your service because you're drinking free water instead of purchasing theirs. Not a direct correlation but closer.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

I was thinking, imagine the media companies demand the power company turn off your power because you downloaded a pirated movie. Or gas stations stop selling gas to you because you speed.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 119 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I want to say as an employee of an ISP I literally dealt with users who essentially couldn't get high speed internet anymore at their address because we were the only option and their grandkids downloaded movies. This put the entire household at a grave disadvantage educationally compared to other households. It shouldn't be a thing.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 50 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That this is even legal in the first place is insane. Digital communication is at least as vital, if not more vital that postage. Image someone is just banned form getting post delivered or he gets throttled to only once every other week...

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 76 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I had Verizon threatened to shut down my internet. I had been receiving notices for close to a decade via email, I assumed they were all toothless. And that was true in the past

I just called the Verizon copyright office and told them that it wasn't me and I would change my Wi-Fi password 😂

It was suspiciously easy as if they really don't care and are just trying to be compliant

I got a VPN and no longer have to deal with it

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 75 points 3 months ago

How about this: courts can't order ISPs to disconnect customers.

To me, that's like ordering my driveway barricaded because I have too many traffic tickets. If I'm breaking the law, charge me with a crime or sue me. But don't block my internet access, that's just uncalled for.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 62 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Small ISPs have zero interest in enforcing piracy. They don't want to lose the customers on their highest tiers. Comcast though, they suck

[–] Zwiebel 47 points 3 months ago (2 children)

enforcing piracy

NOTICE

YOU HAVE NOT MET YOUR MONTHLY PIRACY QUOTA

YOU WILL BE TERMINATED,

THANKS.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 61 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The ISPs? doing something nice?? for the customers???
Shit, I must have slipped into the wrong timeline or something

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago

It's without a doubt motivated by their own loss of revenue but a consumer friendly take is still commendable

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Nope, they just don't wanna be bothered. But if it's a win it's a win.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

It's less work and cost for them if they don't have to do this.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] art@lemmy.world 51 points 3 months ago (8 children)

It's becoming impossible to monitor. I have 5G Broadband Internet and I share a public IP address with everyone in my area. I look at https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com and it shows thousands of torrents that my neighbors have pulled downloaded.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 48 points 3 months ago

Think it's because they know the people pirating are the people paying for unlimited?

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 34 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Meanwhile, VPN providers be like "come on download stuff 😉😉😉", wouldn't that be a much easier case for them to prove willful disregard for piracy?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

A day is going to come when the VPNs are going to be targeted for regulation.

It's only a matter of time before someone shoots up a school with a 3D printed gun or Epstein's a terabyte of child porn to a Senator's office or some other silly bullshit, and then VPNs will become the whipping boy for our litany of problems.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 months ago (10 children)

In autocratic states where VPNs are blocked, they use VPNs that are harder to detect. So by the time they decide to criminalize VPN use in the free (read slightly less un-free) world, we'll still have a cornucopia of options.

It's like FBI trying to ban encryption or get it regulated when we already have encryption technology that is deniable.

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Well,

a) even the labels and studios pirate stuff that isn't theirs. They don't really believe what they preach.

b) All that content they produce involves unethical treatment of the actual creators and technical staff who are under-compensated, and often lose all rights to their own creative work. and

c) regional blocks are just marketing bullshit, and is the primary thing VPNs advertise they'll circumvent for you.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] peanutyam@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m glad I live in Australia where this doesn’t happen thanks to previous attempts by IP copyright holders (mainly US based ones) to have similar policies forced upon ISP’s here and being told by judges here that the penalties and expectations and demands made by these said IP copyright holding companies was over the top and excessive and thrown out of court…..

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fuck the dmca!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Abolish copyright

[–] ytg@sopuli.xyz 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Reform copyright

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Abolish reform

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Reform abolishment

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Refresh abdomen

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago

Can't wait to find out which industry benefits the SCOTUS justices more.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots