Copyright holders hire services that use bots to monitor file-sharing networks and send ISPs millions of notices a year alleging infringement by someone at a particular IP address, Cox told the Supreme Court. Cox said that ISPs “have no way of verifying whether a bot-generated notice is accurate” and that even if the notices are accurate, terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person may have illegally downloaded copyrighted files.
I will support this on the single condition that all of Meta gets disconnected because they did piracy.
In fact, all AIs are doing piracy. Cut off those companies too.
YouTube gets cut off for hosting copyrighted material. Twitch is cut off.
Twitter gets cut off for sharing copyrighted material.
Google stole all those books. Cut it off.
Do it all. Burn it to the ground.
Nintendo smiles at this.
This terrifies me.
I have a collection of 240TB of (mostly) pirated material. I’m uploading 10s of TB a month, downloading ~3TB per month. All going through a VPN, and have never received a notice. Granted, I have unlimited 5 gigabit service at a residential address, so I’m guessing my ISP is catering to people like me with that offering.
VPN.
And make sure you bind it to the app, otherwise when it disconnects it will expose you
Accused? Not convicted but accused?!
This Supreme Court may just love that!
Even if you were convicted of it that doesn’t seem like a suitable punishment. What if you didn’t even use the Internet to copy whatever it was? If I used a VCR to copy a video would I be banned from VCRs?
Why does the copyright owner get to dictate the punishment? When someone steals from a regular person the judge doesn’t ask the person what the punishment should be.
Even if you were convicted of it that doesn’t seem like a suitable punishment.
Agreed; It is not a suitable punishment.
Internet access is now practically required to access a great deal of services that we depend on in order to live. Taking it away because of copyright infringement would be like banning someone from grocery stores for throwing a poppy seed at some corporation’s skyscraper.
If there is one thing the Conservative Majority SCOTUS likes is a to “answer” a question no one is asking.
Citizens United was based off an FEC decision about the Michael Moore, a commercial film maker, the docudrama Farenheite 9/11 which was critical of the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 territorist attacks. The Complaint was the film was political advertisement 60 days before a general election. The FEC decided the film could be aired before the 2004 election as it didn’t support one candidate and only referenced how it was handled not current commentary In advertisements, and therefore was not not a political advertisement for a single candidate.
In response, Citizens United produced a “documentary” Celcius 41.11" which was critical of the Farenheite 9/11 and John Kerry’s actual policies. The FEC ruled this was clearly was a political advertisement put out by not a bona fide commercial film studio, and therefore could no be aired 60 days out from a general election.
What was argued to SCOTUS: Celcius 41.11 should be legal bc we did like Farenheite 9/11 and do not like John Kerry’s 2004 presidential policies
What SCOTUS ruled: Coperations could spend unlimited funds to be critical of an individual’s policies just so long as there was no coordination between the corporation and the candidate that said that the corporation supports
WTF this is even stupider that I thought. This is “Citizens United”?
Well, that was a bit of a stretch. Citizens United was challenging the law used by the FEC to stop their film. That law was first and foremost a law about banning advertising, money collection, and campaigning by non-campaign sources. So the Supreme Court was answering the asked question.
So… Meta?
So does that just mean I can claim that I’m an AI company and need to download all this copyright material for my “start up?”
Are you a billionaire?
Dang it, you’re right.
Do I have an investment opportunity for you, you can buy in for the low low price of a billion dollars.
Allegedly?
Trump is supporting Cox in saying they ISPs shouldn’t be forced to disconnect pirates
Guess the check cleared
We going to shut down Sony for pirating Adobe software and other companies?
A VPN is fast becoming essential internet isn’t it?
Me: *looks at my 10-15TB/mo VPN usage*
It’s totally legit, I swear! Nothing but Linux ISOs and repo clones!
I upload almost 1tb/day lol
On a good day, yeah, I have 100Mb upload so I could just match that going full ham. But I mainly seed rare (<10 seeds) things now and set a 10.0 ratio cap on all of the new/popular stuff. Gotta keep those '80s and '90s ISOs seeded, ya know? ;)
I don’t seed much, usually only 1:1, but I’ve got about 30tb on soulseek/nicotine, 6000 movies, 250 series, 130k songs/full albums
That tends to happen in autocratic states.
I once (I’m old) loved Sony. The Japanese made-in-germany-brand with excellence, brilliance and innovation. I blindly purchased every new gadget, my house was full of Sony products.
Today, reading this and everything before that. I’m tired, boss. Corporates suck ass and totally lost sense how people work and what people do. We’re all just numbers that need to fit in.
Long story short: Fuck Sony, nowadays I do boycott them whenever. Won’t make a difference, but to me.
I’m old
The Sony rootkit was 20 years ago!
In case anyone needed proof that intellectual property is a dystopian concept.
Dont doomsay so much, there’s a completely reasonable balance… that we are exceptionally far away from, because society is a kangaroo court on sale for the highest bidder.
Time to have an AI shut down Sony’s Internet? Maybe all the concurring judges?
The only reason I think this won’t pass is AI needs to steal copy written data. If there wasn’t a corporate shithead doing it then I’m sure the Supreme Court would allow this
You see, the corporate shithead will just share a gratuity with a few justices of choice. That’s how this court has been running for years.
