Comment on Authors Guild Asks Supreme Court to Hold Internet Providers Accountable for Copyright Theft

CocaineShrimp@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• meathappening@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That’s not totally accurate since ISPs have traffic logs and are assigning IP addresses to pirates. I’d say it’s closer to holding Hertz accountable when people who rented cars break the speed limit.

  But I’m concerned how they can request this with a straight face, since we’ve seen wholesale abuse of the DMCA since its inception. Ask anybody who has a YouTube channel with more than 5k subscribers about the false reports they’ve received from companies claiming to own someone else’s music. People are going to have their access cut off based on fake reports.

  source

  • adespoton@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    ISPs route data packets between IP addresses; they don’t get to see the content of what I send/receive (it’s encrypted), and they don’t get domain info without deep packet inspection, because I don’t use their DNS servers.

    It’s more like sometimes the city will put up speed cameras and ALPRs — but does that make them responsible for speeders?

    You have a point about the DMCA though; I’ve had videos monetized by a third party because of music I wrote and performed myself — turned out, the company was stealing MY music and I got dinged for it.

    source

    • meathappening@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      To be clear, I’m not saying it’s a good argument. OP just grossly mischaracterized it.

      The main issue with this is that it would either A. Be massively open to abuse in the same way that YouTube is now, but would come with greater penalties in that you can lose Internet access. Or B. Force your ISP to do a copyright analysis every time they receive a report.

      source
    • Reverendender@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Then how do they know what movie I’m torrenting if my VPN is not on?

      source

      • 4am@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The rights holder is seeding and records your IP address, then sends a C&D to your ISP, who then notify you about it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • tomalley8342@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The above post only applies for HTTP traffic using a third party secure DNS - traditional P2P torrenting will leak what you are downloading to your peers. There are anonymous P2P networks like I2P that (allegedly) solve this issue, but it is not widely adopted.

        source
• NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I mean… why do you think new speed bumps and traffic signals get added to neighborhoods? Same with adjusted speed limits.

  That IS the engineers (well, the local government that employs them) being held accountable for dangerous roads.

  For this? I have very serious concerns for all the obvious reasons. But ISPs 100% know what we are doing. Like… there is a reason that comcast et al basically have like a 1 gig upload on a 100 gig down connection. Same with bandwidth caps… which “worked” up until everyone was teleconferencing from home and watching 4k netflix.

  And… considering comcast et al love to sell bundles for “unlimited bandwidth” or “symmetrical upload”… they are very much profiting off of piracy.

  source

  • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    there is a reason that comcast et al basically have like a 1 gig upload on a 100 gig down connection.

    Because they’re limited on channels and allocate more of them for increased download speed because most people upload very little data comparatively.

    The bandwidth cap is just a pure money grab as they removed the caps during covid when everyone was video calling and sitting around online at home and ‘somehow’ their network handled it just fine.

    None of this has anything to do with piracy.

    source
  • Manjushri@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The local government is not banning repeat speeders from using the roads though. The courts might do that by revoking driver’s licenses, but the engineers and local governments do not have the authority, and should not have the authority to do so.

    In the same way, internet providers should not be the one’s who decide that a given user should not have access. That should remain the decision of the courts. If a copyright holder can show the courts that a user should be denied access to the internet, the courts can order the individual cut off. That’s where the power should remain.

    source

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The local government is not banning repeat speeders from using the roads though.

      Uhm… they do. Fuck up badly enough and your license is taken away. Does that stop people from driving? Of course not. But the penalties for getting caught go up really fast (if you aren’t a cishet white “good old boy”).

      And while it is more associated with NIMBYism than safety, there are a few neighborhoods around the country where “no through traffic” is enforced very heavily. Usually there is no actual fine, but you get a rentacop who will make your life hell for the 30 minutes they spend “running your plates” and so forth.

      That should remain the decision of the courts.

      Uhm… what do you think this is?

      source

      • Manjushri@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Uhm… what do you think this is?

        This is the Author’s Guild asking for internet providers to be able to block people without a court order. They want to be able to contact a provider and say, “This user downloaded a book without paying for it so you have to cut off their internet. The provider should not be allowed to do that unless the courts order them to do so.

        The linked article clearly shows this.

        As our brief explains, when millions of people can copy and share creative works “quickly, anonymously, and across borders,” going after individual infringers one by one is nearly impossible. The only practical way to stop large-scale piracy is to hold accountable for the internet companies that provide the infrastructure—especially when those companies know exactly what’s happening and choose to profit from it anyway.

        They can already go after individual infringers and web sites that aid in piracy. Now they want to be able to order providers to cut off users without the bother of going to court over it.

        Uhm… they do. Fuck up badly enough and your license is taken away.

        Yeah, by the courts. Fuck up badly enough, and you can be taken to court and a judge will take away your license. It’s not taken away by the local government. What the Author’s Guild wants is equivalent to requiring communities to take away the rights of some drivers to use the roads without bothering to take drivers to court.

        source

        • -> View More Comments