this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
300 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
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
45
Court Keeps DMCA Subpoena Shortcut Closed, Restricts Piracy Settlements * TorrentFreak (torrentfreak.com)
submitted 6 months ago by Glass0448@lemmy.today to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Image

Earlier this year, a Hawaiian District Court blocked movie companies' efforts to unmask alleged BitTorrent pirates using a DMCA subpoena 'shortcut'. The filmmakers asked the court to reconsider its position but without success; the 'DMCA shortcut' will remain closed. The rightsholders will appeal the order but won't be able to use evidence previously obtained through settlements with pirating subscribers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 months ago

In the motion for reconsideration, the movie companies argued that Cox and other ISPs are not just mere conduit providers under DMCA §512(a); they would also fall under DMCA §512(d), as they can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

If this argument succeeds, a DMCA subpoena would be valid, as these do apply to services that fall under DMCA §512(d).

The movie companies used various arguments to make their case. For example, they argued that IP addresses are in themselves “references or links to infringing material” which can be disabled through null-routing. In addition, Cox can respond to takedown notices by implementing filters or blocking ports

Seriously fuck off. That's batshit insane.