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

Technology

58261 readers
4301 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
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] obbeel@lemmy.eco.br 8 points 6 days ago

People need to come into contact with the Internet that isn't based on streaming asap. We need laws worldwide that prevent blocking access to knowledge - the most basic and guaranteed by constitutions worldwide right. Books, music, films and games. People should have at least some access to them. I can't imagine a world where I'm licensed to my books by Amazon. It's just awful. Something needs to be brought together before publishers make this a crime.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 325 points 1 week ago (4 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 111 points 1 week ago (7 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it is also the user they disconnect for piracy tend to pay more. They tend to be more premium customers also why should they enforce what happens on their lines. It is an illegal search and seizure. Let the government get a warrant prove something is illegal then the ISP can disconnect them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 178 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Sony can't have your electricity cut off if you pirate. Because electricity is a utility.

ISPs want it both ways. They want the legal protections of a utility without the obligations.

The solution is to give them the legal protection they want by declaring them a utility.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Those moments when you can't decide if someone's username means they're a science nerd or a Venture Bros. fan.

Me_irl:

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Who in their right Minds would want to be a nerd but not a venture brothers fan?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 169 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

The headline should read:

Despite best efforts and all odds, ISPs find themselves on the right side of history.

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 63 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

Only because it would hurt their bottom line.

Funny how we can only win when it's corporations fighting each other.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inbeesee@lemmy.world 118 points 6 days ago (5 children)

If someone is using municipal water in their meth lab, the whole city block shouldn't have their water shut off

[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I heard this meth is transported over the interstate, so we should block that as well.

[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If someone is using meth in prison, the whole prison should be shut down.

[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 6 days ago

Did I hear that correctly? Meth is absorbed within the blood? Drain everybody

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 109 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Not everyday i agree with ISPs but here we are. Guilty of and accused of are two very different things. Innocent until proven guilty.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Hell, I don't even want to ban users guilty of piracy. Oh no! Sony and it's BILLIONS of dollars will surely be affected by pirating their dvd of a movie! Heavens to betsy!

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] filister@lemmy.world 93 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why don't they start with OpenAI and other LLM vendors, because they are the biggest copyright infringement abusers of all time?

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 66 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Because they're also rich. Laws are for the poors.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com 79 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

There would be no more internet access for anyone anymore if that were allowed.

Soooo many insecure networks out there ripe for the picking if you know what you’re doing and have the tools available. And the tools are often free, not costing any money. From there, those networks are the places people will go to commit their “piracy”.

And what exactly is piracy? If I purchase an album on iTunes but choose to download it on ThePirateBay, is that really piracy? Because I have done that when the music THAT I FUCKING PAID FOR is no longer available for me to download off of iTunes and Apple won’t give me a refund for said music purchase. People do it for games that include shitty DRM and don’t allow them to easily install on another device like Linux too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

imagine getting banned from the one monopoly ISP available to you in your entire city. what do you do after that? sell your house?

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 43 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It's insane that people (okay, mostly corporations) try to argue internet access is not a utility. What happens then? Does your home value decrease? Or does the next purchaser have to petition the ISP to convince them they are a different, non-infringing customer and hope they reverse the ban??

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago

Even though I hate Starlink, it would be an option.

What I would do however is try and ask my neighbors. If neighbors don't work, I'd just hack their Wifi.

Another option would be to contact other ISPs and tell them your neighborhood/village/city is ready for an alternative. It'll depend on many factors whether or not this would be successful, but I have seen it happen in the past. Just takes a few different households to contact them and they'll start doing market research.

Getting somebody with a different last name to try and get a new contract would be possible too. But it could be considered fraud.

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

I actually just use my phone for internet and haven't had a landline ISP for 2 years now.

Visible, $25/month has saved me so much money and they even sent me a free phone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenEngineering3475@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Heartbreaking: Worst Corporation(s) you know, just made a good stand

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mhague@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago

Terminating service over allegations of piracy. Kicking someone off the internet because an automated copyright system accused them of piracy. That's crazy.

[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 30 points 1 week ago

So Sony wants to punish ISPs for continuing to "allow" illegal things to happen? Hmm remind me again which company it is that has had so many data breaches that users have come to just expect it? Sounds to me like if they are allowed to pursue attacking internet providers then they themselves should start seeing lawsuits for continuing damages until such time as Sony is able to successfully recover all stolen personal data and other parties can no longer use it for profit.

[–] BF2040@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How can you hold a company responsible for someone else's actions? When someone hits someone with a car we don't go after the manufacturer. I think ISPs should only be held accountable for their own actions.

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I think they're trying to apply the same logic that's applied to internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter, etc., where the platform is only non-liable for copyright violations on their platform if they have a good-faith system in place for preventing copyright infringement and responding to DMCA requests. I don't think this logic should apply to ISPs, frankly the entire internet is far too large of a place to be monitored by any one company for copyright infringement, and I'd rather ISPs be nationalized and treated as public utilities than try to fit them into the same legal framework as social media companies.

That being said, even if the courts decide they should be forced into that same legal framework, ISPs could easily satisfy their legal obligations by simply blocking access to copyrighted content via their DNS service (which can easily be worked around by using an alternative DNS). There's no legal reason why ISPs would be expected to block individual users from their network, and even if there were, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway, the state (and therefore the people) paid the lion's-share of the cost to lay all that fiber-optic and copper cable across the country, so the state should own that infrastructure and operate it in the interest of the people (Internet access would be considered a human right and publicly owned ISPs would only have prices high enough to break even, not generate a profit).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›