this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
54 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

64175 readers
477 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):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37157681

The battle over a $1 billion piracy judgment against internet provider Cox Communications has reached the Supreme Court, where the company receives broad support. Amicus briefs from the U.S. government, major tech companies, and various other parties, warn that the current ruling creates a dangerous precedent. They argue that the Fourth Circuit ruling, which makes passive service providers liable for their customers' actions, invokes broad liability and puts people's internet access at risk.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 hours ago

We seriously need an international community/worker-owned NGO co-operative that gives internet connections.

All relying on OpenSource Hardware & software

[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 32 points 5 days ago (1 children)

OK recording industry. Riddle me this. If you manage to cut off my internet access, how am I supposed to purchase your media?

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Their (incorrect) logic is that if you were pirating you weren't purchasing their content anyway.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone is an exclusive pirate or purchaser. Everyone is on the scale between one of the other, whether that's someone who mostly pirates but goes to the movies on occasion, or someone who mostly pays for Netflix but will hunt down something Netflix doesn't have.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

You and I know thats true and piracy in some cases is shown to increase sales because people decide its worth money and/or talk about it more. Heck some people pirate things they already own just because they're too lazy to find the copy they own.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

This is absolutely the gatekeeping and control Trump's dictatorship wants to wield over companies and people. I'd be surprised if they stuck to precedent; their whole shtick is to rewrite application of law to their objectives, sidestepping Congress.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago (4 children)

So my question is, do we want ISPs to be liable? If they are, they will be more likely to cut alleged pirates off. If they aren't, then a legal door is open for the rights holders to go after individuals directly.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Absolutely not. They should be common carriers with zero weighting and even zero knowledge about what transits their network.

Agreed. This whole lawsuit is one giant looming catastrophe. If ISP's are found liable for copyright infringement, that will be the effective end of the open internet. From there, I can already see the argument taking shape that ISP's, telco's, and account holders are all effectively accomplices in all sorts of crimes facilitated using communications networks.

[–] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Imagine the utilities company that provides homes with water being liable for somebody getting drowned in a bathtub ...

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 days ago

Oh, hell no.

You do not want the ISPs to be the cops. They are a neutral provider that gives basic Internet access. If that access is to be terminated, it should be done by a court, and there should be a police case.

Having the ISP's doxx the users is an unfavorable but more proper answer. But every one of those should be a court case at least. Innocent until proven guilty, not just shut down because they think you might be guilty.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 7 points 5 days ago

about as much as the telephone company is liable for what you say.

arguing over the implementation of a broken system is pointless anyway, they are gonna do whatever is in the shareholders best interest; always.

They really don't understand piracy at all. Piracy has got plenty of people into purchasing more products and supporting the economy.