Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54520 readers

354 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

751

Court blocks $1 billion copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users’ piracy (arstechnica.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Yglorba@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

One thing that leaps out at me about this ruling is that courts understand the internet a lot better nowadays. A decade or so ago Sony would have probably gotten away with the argument that Cox profited from the users' piracy; nowadays judges themselves use the internet and are going to go "lolno, they probably would have been Cox customers anyway. It's not like anyone pays for internet connection solely to pirate. And in most areas people don't even have a choice of provider, so how is Cox profiting from this?"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 48 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Media Corporations should not have a say in disconnecting users from the internet based on copyright infringement. The right to social participation is part of a basic human right - self-determination. Today, the majority of interactions with society involve communication via internet in one way or another, so that access to the internet is vital for enabling social participation.

[–] pirat@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's somehow comparable to a scenario where they had the power to decide you can't use uber/taxi, or postal services, because you used it to transport the HDD you're using for your private collection of copyright-protected media.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You're right, but looking at this analogy backwards tells us the problem isn't the ability for Uber/ISPs to ban users--this happens and isn't a problem with Uber-- it's that Uber, unlike ISPs, doesn't hold a monopoly on feasible means of transportation. We can't reasonably expect a business to act outside its own best interests, so it's insane to allow a business to exist in such a form. Short term, sure, regulate; but really, nationalize it.

[–] Raxiel@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

At the very least, nationalise the last mile.