Supreme Court to decide whether ISPs must disconnect users accused of piracy

[tonytins@pawb.social]

This post did not contain any content.

[internetcitizen2@lemmy.world]

I nominate we test with out with the Zuck and his networks.

[panax@lemmy.world]

Based on that logic, ammunition and arms manufacturers should be held liable for damages as well.

[sturlabragason@lemmy.world]

Here i am again doing my duty https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

[the_picard_maneuver@lemmy.world]

I'm not a judge, but isn't internet essentially a utility these days? Cutting someone off because of piracy seems like cutting off electricity or water because they did something illegal with it.

[deathbybigsad@sh.itjust.works]

I'm not doing piracy, I'm just trading a lot of data packets with a Proton Server in Switzerland, nothing to see here

[bitjunkie@lemmy.world]

This would be the case had net neutrality not been killed off nearly a decade ago

[obsidianfoxxy7870@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

The unproven claims is the key part here. Also the point of "terminating an account would punish every user in a household" is important as well.

You can fine someone for piracy if you want. As long as they have the standard legal protections. But cutting access is excessive.

[telorand@reddthat.com]

Pragmatically, yes. Legally, no. Progressives have been fighting for years to get internet classified as a utility in the US, and regressives and (ironically) internet companies have been fighting against that effort at every turn in the name of profit.

And now look how well that's turned out. Gee, if only some people had warned them that deregulation was a monkey's paw...

[aguyacrosstheinternet@fedia.io]

I'm not doing piracy, I am merely training my AI!

[compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

Yes, but that would mean that logic has any bearing on what the Supreme Court decides to do

[einlander@lemmy.world]

We are going to end up with a super private and encrypted Internet because of it.

[fartswithanaccent@fedia.io]

The mere accusation causing someone to lose the Internet, which is vital to modern life, would be insane.

Additionally, it would do little to nothing to stop piracy.

[fartswithanaccent@fedia.io]

They could even be totally innocent, the mere accusation is enough, wtf?

[pattymcb@lemmy.world]

What about legitimate torrented content? Are they going to outlaw the technology outright? Don't plenty of legitimate downloads use torrents to speed up software updates and such?

[iamthetot@sh.itjust.works]

The recent judgement did not, in fact, say that pirating was legal if you use the pirated material to train AI.

[ryper@lemmy.ca]

I'm pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don't have a right to electricity, or even water. They'll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.

[ryper@lemmy.ca]

The US has a law to limit the liability of gun manufacturers.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.

[atomicbunnies@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Yes. I share like 100+ Linux distros via torrents.

[cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone]

thank god i go to ireland to do all my torrenting.