441

Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn't be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks.

While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy "would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access." The legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet," they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday.

top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] filister@lemmy.world 48 points 3 hours ago

Why don't they start with OpenAI and other LLM vendors, because they are the biggest copyright infringement abusers of all time?

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 18 points 2 hours ago

Because they're also rich. Laws are for the poors.

[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 hour ago
[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 hour ago

Which is why the Supreme Court is hearing the case. Two wealthy industries fighting out who gets to extract the most wealth.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

In Canada they absolutely are lol

[-] NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com 52 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

There would be no more internet access for anyone anymore if that were allowed.

Soooo many insecure networks out there ripe for the picking if you know what you’re doing and have the tools available. And the tools are often free, not costing any money. From there, those networks are the places people will go to commit their “piracy”.

And what exactly is piracy? If I purchase an album on iTunes but choose to download it on ThePirateBay, is that really piracy? Because I have done that when the music THAT I FUCKING PAID FOR is no longer available for me to download off of iTunes and Apple won’t give me a refund for said music purchase. People do it for games that include shitty DRM and don’t allow them to easily install on another device like Linux too.

[-] blakemiller@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago

I know people really hate to hear this. You have a good reason to feel like you’re not doing anything wrong in some cases. But buying songs is a misnomer. These people running digital media stores know what they’re doing and the Terms of Use you click straight through without reading lays it all out in a way that you’re meant to understand. You don’t own the music, you have a license to enjoy the music under certain terms, including the ability of the owner to retract your license for a number of reasons beyond your control.

I’m not here to convince you to change your ways, nor to make a value judgment of you. Rather to simply answer your question: yes, that is piracy.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 219 points 12 hours ago

I like the end result that ISPs are pushing back on this, but don't mistake this for altruism on their part.

Their businesses make money selling internet service. Were they to support cutting off those accused of piracy, they would be losing paying customers. Further, the business processes and support needed for this to function would be massively expensive and complicated. They'd have to hired teams of people and write whole new software applications for maintaining databases of banned users, customer service staff to address and resolve disputes, and so much more.

Lastly, as soon as all of that process would be in place to ban users for piracy accusations, then the next requests would come in for ban criteria in a classic slippery slope:

  • pornography
  • discussions of drugs
  • discussions of politics the party in power doesn't like
  • speaking out against the state
  • communication about assembling
  • discussion on how to emigrate

All the machinery would be in place once the very first ban is approved.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 hour ago

I agree with all this, but I think it is all to say: ISPs support Net Neutrality when it behooves them.

[-] 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works 47 points 8 hours ago

Plus, you aren’t disconnecting a person, but a whole family or business.

And since many areas in the US only have one provider, you force that family to cancel all streaming services they might have. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation.

Not if they get their universal digital ID system in place. It is the wet dream of tyrants of all kinds.

[-] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 36 points 10 hours ago

I think it is also the user they disconnect for piracy tend to pay more. They tend to be more premium customers also why should they enforce what happens on their lines. It is an illegal search and seizure. Let the government get a warrant prove something is illegal then the ISP can disconnect them.

[-] Graphy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Yeah who else is going to pay for 1GB speeds knowing the most they’ll ever get is 400MB

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 113 points 12 hours ago

Sony can't have your electricity cut off if you pirate. Because electricity is a utility.

ISPs want it both ways. They want the legal protections of a utility without the obligations.

The solution is to give them the legal protection they want by declaring them a utility.

[-] robotica@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

I wonder if would you get your electricity cut off if you plugged in a 750kW industrial oil drill in your backyard

[-] Cort@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

The 200A main breaker on most homes would trip a little above 50kW. Could you even start up 1000hp without 3 phase?

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Those moments when you can't decide if someone's username means they're a science nerd or a Venture Bros. fan.

Me_irl:

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago

Who in their right Minds would want to be a nerd but not a venture brothers fan?

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago

I'm not certain but there's a high probability that that Venn diagram is just a circle

[-] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Go Team Venture!

[-] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 89 points 12 hours ago

Not everyday i agree with ISPs but here we are. Guilty of and accused of are two very different things. Innocent until proven guilty.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 22 points 11 hours ago

Hell, I don't even want to ban users guilty of piracy. Oh no! Sony and it's BILLIONS of dollars will surely be affected by pirating their dvd of a movie! Heavens to betsy!

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 3 hours ago

You joke but that's how Sony feels when you buy a used DVD... They just can't admit it publicly

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

They must HATE me......There's a thrift shop just up the street from me. I bought Deadpool on DVD/Bluray combo pack. Still sealed new from factory, for $2.50.

I buy lots of DVDs there. My sisters say my collection is rediculous. She means it in a bad way, like I need to get rid of some stuff. But hell, when it's $2.50, why NOT buy like 20 movies in an afternoon? And why NOT do that same thing several times a year? Although I will admit I'm running out of room......help! My apartment is filled with DVDs, and I can't see the walls anymore!

[-] acetanilide@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I aspire to be like you! I finally am going to have a DVD player and I am absolutely THRILLED. No joke. It's going to be fantastic.

Not as fantastic as an old VCR since it's like 2% harder to fast forward through the ads. But pretty close!

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

....you wanna come over and watch ghostbusters?

[-] j4k3@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago

Not for potato supreme. I'm sure labels and sony bought vacations for those sub human coup supporting shits

[-] metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub 14 points 10 hours ago

Never dehumanize fascists or fascist-sympathizers (redundant but ok), it's always important to remember that bad faith actors or their stooges are human and cannot be entirely eliminated from society, which is why people that fight for positive change have to set the rules such that bad faith actors' actions are either quickly recognized and mitigated, or have society structured such that even those motivated solely by unempathetic selfishness can only achieve status by masking and contributing positively anyway.

[-] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I am not familiar with that, I'm guessing potato supreme is a username or something?

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

It's an Idaho-exclusive new dish at Taco Bell.

[-] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Well it sounds delicious, and definitely not guilty of piracy

[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

No, of course not. Piracy would sour the cream.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

Probably a delicious baked potato dish. Not sure whether cheesy potatoes really care if you're guilty of piracy, they just want to be eaten.

[-] GreenEngineering3475@lemmy.world 32 points 12 hours ago

Heartbreaking: Worst Corporation(s) you know, just made a good stand

[-] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 11 points 11 hours ago

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[-] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Unless it's a 24 hour clock.

[-] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 4 points 4 hours ago

So an average of 1.5 times?

[-] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 18 points 11 hours ago

So Sony wants to punish ISPs for continuing to "allow" illegal things to happen? Hmm remind me again which company it is that has had so many data breaches that users have come to just expect it? Sounds to me like if they are allowed to pursue attacking internet providers then they themselves should start seeing lawsuits for continuing damages until such time as Sony is able to successfully recover all stolen personal data and other parties can no longer use it for profit.

[-] Juice260@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago

It still makes me feel some type of way that Sony (a Japanese company) gets so much sway over US business and policies. It’s something I thought about a lot when Microsoft was trying to close its deal with Activision. I don’t care much either way about multi-billion dollar conglomerates (or trillions in Microsoft’s case) butting heads but it did strike me as odd that a foreign company had that much of a hold on the deal. I get that piracy of media is frowned upon but like the ISP’s are arguing here, the affects of cutting off access to their clientele would have a lot of negative impact. I once again sit here wondering why a foreign company should have that kind of power over American citizens… you know?

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

May I introduce you to Nintendo?

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 10 hours ago

This may have something to do with it. One hand washing the other, as the saying goes.

[-] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 hours ago

There's got to be a way to just decriminalize piracy

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 hours ago

Looks like an old-politician idea to me; a generation late. Nowadays, cutting internet is as bad as cutting electricity.

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 8 points 12 hours ago

Wow, unusual for them but based

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

Not really unusual. They don't care if you pirate stuff, they just want you to pay for internet access. They only sent notices and such to keep the rights holders happy.

[-] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 30 points 12 hours ago

They're ensuring their money keeps flowing. This isn't about altruism - it's just their Greed incidentally benefits us.

ISPs are trying to mitigate exposure to lawsuits, prevent costly tracking and tracing responsibilities, and make sure customers can keep paying instead of losing their internet privileges (and their internet bills!)

That peasants like us find this favorable is an unintended bonus.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

Exactly. ISPs want to do as little work as possible and collect as much as possible. If they have to monitor for torrents, track which customers they've warned, etc, that's extra cost that, ultimately, could take away paying customers. So there are no benefits for them unless the piracy is causing problems for other users (i.e. could result in more customers cancelling service).

[-] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 3 points 12 hours ago

it's a nice argument from the users point of view, but it won't be allowed

copyright holders will need to be thrown a bone, and given some level of enforcement, else, copyright law is meaningless

celebrate all you want, this won't pass muster

~ signed, a jolly roger

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 3 hours ago

copyright holders will need to be thrown a bone,

Is there a law to support this position?

If so, where is limit? Deep packet inspection of VPN traffic? At whose expense?

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
441 points (99.8% liked)

Technology

58135 readers
4520 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS