Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

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
    NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    This is the Author’s Guild asking for internet providers to be able to block people without a court order.
    
    Uhm…
    
    Authors Guild Asks Supreme Court
    
    That’s the question at the heart of Cox Communications v. Sony, a case the Authors Guild—joined by Sisters in Crime, Romance Writers of America, the Songwriters Guild of America, Novelists Inc., the Dramatists Guild of America, and the Society of Composers and Lyricists—weighed in on by filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 22, 2025.
    
    This is asking for the court to decide in their favor.
    
    As for
    
    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.
    
    ISPs have been doing that for decades. That is where data caps came from with the ISPs tending to throttle the hell out of you if you downloaded too much in a single month or they thought you were running a website without paying for business internet. Back in the day, you just had to call and ask why your internet was so slow (for the fifth time that year…) and they would un-cap, but that eventually turned into an official system where they charge an arm and a leg for going over 1 TB or whatever nonsense.
    
    ISPs are already doing whatever they want without court orders. They just do so in a way that lets them profit off the pirates (if there isn’t enough competition to prevent them from doing so).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments