this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
839 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3168 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
839
ISPs tell Supreme Court they don’t want to disconnect users accused of piracy (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 326 points 2 months ago (12 children)

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.

[–] 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works 114 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think a big problem we don't want to address is now that we're so interconnected, internet access is a necessity that should be classified as a utility. You can't just cut off someone's electricity without notification or process because they did something bad with it and it should apply here too

[–] LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shared devices would still be a problem no?

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Sharing? Communism. Straight to jail.

load more comments (9 replies)