ISPs tell Supreme Court they don’t want to disconnect users accused of piracy

Comments

• partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think a big problem we don’t want to address is now that we’re so interconnected, internet access is a necessity that should be classified as a utility. You can’t just cut off someone’s electricity without notification or process because they did something bad with it and it should apply here too

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Graphy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yeah who else is going to pay for 1GB speeds knowing the most they’ll ever get is 400MB

      source
  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I agree with all this, but I think it is all to say: ISPs support Net Neutrality when it behooves them.

    source

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yeah but that’s capitalism in a nutshell, isn’t it?

      source
• Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The headline should read:

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

  source

  • john89@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Only because it would hurt their bottom line.

    source

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’m surprised ISPs haven’t found a way to start issuing fines and fees for alleged copyright violations.

      source
    • Prethoryn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Bottom line or not there are ways that ISP’s could mitigate the loss that would benefit their bottom like while hurting the consumer.

      Example: 1000 users are now nor able to pay or use the internet because of Piracy. ISP says: oh we had 2000 users now we have 1000 easy we will just double the cost of internet on those 1000 users.

      ISP’s are like any other company. Pointing it out doesn’t mean it is negative. They are a business ruin their business model and it impacts everyone. I am not saying you are wrong. I just think your comment tries to view this stance in a negative light in the context and something being a business with a bottom line doest not instantly make something negative or make something negative not worth fighting for.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Yeah, totally, unbiased reporting to advocate for those poor vulnerable ISPs…

    source
• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

    Me_irl:

    Image

    source

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • robotica@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I wonder if would you get your electricity cut off if you plugged in a 750kW industrial oil drill in your backyard

    source

    • Cort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The 200A main breaker on most homes would trip a little above 50kW. Could you even start up 1000hp without 3 phase?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The people who sell electricity are surprisingly happy to sell you electricity. If you happen to do something horribly wrong and don’t burn your house down, an electrician will be happy to do the repairs. If you have 200 Amp service and draw the full 200 all year long, the most significant reaction would probably be getting a personalized Christmas card.

      source
• inbeesee@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source

  • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

    source

    • runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • hate2bme@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Also need to stop the “oil burner” trade

      source
  • pythonoob@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If internet companies want to make an argument like that, then internet should be treated as a utility.

    source

    • Wogi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If internet companies want to make an argument like that, then internet should be treated as a utility.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This

      source
• Bluefruit@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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!

    source

    • damnedfurry@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy.

      Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.

      source
  • j4k3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Not for potato supreme. I’m sure labels and sony bought vacations for those sub human coup supporting shits

    source

    • metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Never dehumanize fascists or fascist-sympathizers (redundant but ok), it’s always important to remember that bad faith actors or their stooges are human and cannot be entirely eliminated from society, which is why people that fight for positive change have to set the rules such that bad faith actors’ actions are either quickly recognized and mitigated, or have society structured such that even those motivated solely by unempathetic selfishness can only achieve status by masking and contributing positively anyway.

      source
    • Bluefruit@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I am not familiar with that, I’m guessing potato supreme is a username or something?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• filister@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source

  • deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

    source

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      ISPs are rich too?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  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.

  source
• nutsack@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  imagine getting bad from the only ISP available to you in your entire city. what do you do after that?

  source

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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??

    source

    • ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      This happened in the apartment I just moved into. I had to call to verify my identity and they had to unblock something on their side due to the previous tenant ostensibly not paying.

      source
    • nutsack@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’m guessing it would be tied to your name. the new tenants would have service, but you might have to move to a different state or something.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

    source
  • john89@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

    source
  • KellysNokia@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    puts on fake moustache “Hello I am new to the area and would like to procure one internet please.”

    source
• GreenEngineering3475@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source
• mhague@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

  source
• General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I never understand how this community relates to copyright. It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned. Then the most dogmatic copyright maximalists come out It’s all anti-capitalist until AI is mentioned and then the most conservative, devout Ayn Rand followers show up.

  source

  • KaiReeve@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s almost as if the people here favor individual rights over corporate profits.

    source

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You have a corporation that doesn’t want to spend money to care for individual copyrights, or even lose customers over it. That describes ISPs. Still, people side with the corporation.

      When you say individual rights, you, of course, mean copyrights; intellectual property rights. Giving property such a high priority is such a clash to the otherwise anti-capitalist attitudes here. It’s not just pro capitalist. It’s pro conservative capitalist.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Kiernian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Some of it is about the "Why"s.

    Netflix nearly stamped out piracy for a while there by being a vastly more attractive alternative. Between them and Hulu, and to a lesser extent prime(at the time) if it was streaming, you could watch it somewhere at a reasonable price for a marginally reasonable viewing experience that was at least as good as most TPB downloads.

    Then the IP owners got greedier and decided to strike out on their own with the “everyone has a streaming service” model, which would be GREAT if they largely shared content, but they don’t.

    The greed continues, not in order to adequately compensate creators, but to make a few handfuls of people not just rich but filthy rich. Every action they take suddenly becomes more penny pinching for more greed. At this point lots of the CONTENT CREATORS wish they had a better choice (how often do they say ‘please watch it this way, that’s just how they rank stuff, sorry’?)

    Why is it the opposite with AI?

    Because in comparison with stuff like streaming video or music platforms, AI is BARELY pretending to offer a functional service in exchange for the greed that’s behind all of the money they’re trying to force it to make for them.

    And that’s just for one side of the debate.

    Why isn’t the fact that AI is largely garnering the same responses even from DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GROUPS telling you something about how bad of an idea it is in it’s current incarnation?

    source

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      To me the AI thing is about big vs small.

      Steal from a big company, that’s the cost of doing business baby!

      Steal from a small business and… WTF do you think you’re doing?

      The AI thing is largely large companies stealing from everyone. Large and small alike.

      Real-world example: I’m not alone in this, as has been made clear from my time on the internet, but if I saw someone shoplifting groceries from Walmart or something, then, I didn’t see anyone stealing from Walmart. I didn’t see shit. Turn that around and say someone stole some handmade trinket from a booth at a convention, I’m going to go find the nearest security guard.

      AI steals from small artists and authors, commentators and you and I, as much as it steals from big businesses. We, the people, don’t have the same capability to fight against someone like openAI taking our shit, compared to a multinational media conglomerate. The AI folks seem to believe that it’s fine as long as nobody complains, then enter agreements with meta and Reddit to buy up all of our written, photographed, and otherwise self-published information to buy everything we’ve ever submitted to their platform.

      The big companies are raping us of our intellectual property, claiming it as their own, and selling it to other businesses for fun and profit. We generated all of that content that they sold and they gave us nothing for it. They got it for free, all the while, selling us ads and confusing “algorithm based” feeds of bullshit to try to enhance their bottom line.

      We’ve been lied to, stolen from, intellectually and financially raped, and we’ve gotten nothing in return. They took our inherent need to connect with one another, and turned it into dollars in their bank accounts. They’re not providing a service, certainly not providing one worth using… What they are doing is farming us to line their own pockets. Our ideas, thoughts, comments, videos and pictures are their crops that they repackage and sell to whomever will pay for it. This is just the latest in “people are the product” things that gets repackaged and resold back to the people it came from, and we get the privilege to pay to use the AI they develop off the backs of our labor.

      If AI wants to steal from big businesses like news media outlets, or companies like Disney, nobody would give any shits about it. Go the fuck ahead. You want to wholesale steal the thoughts and ideas of every person who has ever submitted anything to the internet? Fuck you.

      AI is borderline useless anyways, just the hallucinations of a machine that’s doing it’s best to regurgitate the most likely combination of symbols that will make the “success” metric go up. The order of those symbols is entirely based on a long history of what symbols, in what order, followed a real interaction between two flesh creatures. Emulate the response of the flesh creatures, win the favor of the flesh creatures.

      It doesn’t think, it doesn’t care, it gives canned responses from a mind bogglingly large dataset of possibilities. The ones that are given the blessing of the fleshy creators are ranked higher than those that don’t. It’s a tape recorder with more steps. A lot more.

      source
    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Why isn’t the fact that AI is largely garnering the same responses even from DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GROUPS telling you something about how bad of an idea it is in it’s current incarnation?

      I’m not seeing anything remarkable from organized groups. For example, the Internet Archive and libraries favor strong fair use. The copyright industry obviously sees this as an opportunity to expand property rights against the public interest. Tech companies have always been on either side, depending on their particular interest. Basically, everyone is on the usual side, just as you’d expect. Only on social media are things kinda weird. I don’t think people are considering their own interests, but I really don’t get what drives this.

      source
  • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Here’s my guess. Piracy provides a competition against the horrible practices of streaming and entertainment companies that doesn’t otherwise exist, forcing them to provide a better service.

    Artists are just a single person making art and their service isn’t gobbled up by the capitalist machine and turned into something user unfriendly. They don’t usually make too much money, unlike huge entertainment corporations, either.

    When it comes to piracy, individual content creators often don’t care as long as they get money to live. There have been people who work on video games or movies who say they don’t care if others pirate their work as long as others get to see it. But for AI, it copies and changes the work, stripping the art of its original watermark, and it sets itself up to be a replacement of the artist itself. It doesn’t just spread their work without having you pay for it, it replaces the concept of needing an artist altogether, but only by using their labor in the first place without paying them for it.

    If piracy let movie studios replace the idea of needing individual content creators, writers, artists actors, etc then people would feel differently I think. As it is now, people don’t care about big studios, they care about the individual. Piracy currently only really harms the former and not the latter. AI is the opposite.

    source

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Copyright is the same for everyone; corporations or people, rich or poor. Financially speaking, this issue has close to 0 to do with individual content creators, much less struggling ones. They are simply not the big content owners.

      PR companies know that people care about the individual. So when they shill for a law, they will send in some individual. It’s never about money for corporations or the rich, but always about the “hard-working American”; and then say hello to some Joe, the plumber. I can see why artists on social media would discourage their followers from going to the competition. But the whole copyright angle won’t save anyone’s job.

      source
  • john89@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Everyone is different.

    I personally think copyright and patent laws need to die. If you can’t protect your own secrets, don’t rely on taxpayer resources to do it for you.

    source

    • dirthawker0@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Americans would not want the price of produce to get higher but a) it relies on employing undocumented labor and b) it’s very hard to find American citizens these days willing to do that kind of hard physical work.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      White-collar workers were cool with machines and poorer nations taking blue-collar jobs. Now that it threatens them and their money, the hypocrisy is on full display.

      Heh. Yes. It’s even beyond hypocrisy. Many will outright say that automation is supposed to churn over these “dirty, boring” jobs while making their own lives better. Even finding themselves on the receiving end of progress, they don’t call for a better social safety net. No, they just want to get rent for their property. I wonder how much copyright industry has to do with the steady move to the economic right, through its huge influence on culture.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned.

    The issue isn’t quite so much copyright as privatization. And the distinction between “freedom on the high seas” and “AI” gets into the idea of the long term ownership of media.

    One of the problems I run into, as a consumer of media, is that I can purchase a piece of content and then discover the service or medium I purchased it on has gone defunct. Maybe its an old video game with a console that’s broken or no longer able to hook up to my TV. Maybe its a movie I bought on a streaming service that no longer exists. Maybe its personal content I’ve created that I’d like to transfer between devices or extend to other people. Maybe its a piece of media I don’t trust sending through the mail, so I’d prefer to transfer it digitally.

    Under the Torrent model, I can give or get a copy of a piece of media I already own in a format that my current set of devices support. Like with a library.

    Under the AI model, somebody else gets to try and extort licensing fees from me for a thing they never legally possessed to begin with.

    I see a huge distinction between these two methods of data ownership and distribution.

    source

    • obbeel@lemmy.eco.br ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That is so true. If Steam goes away, so does all of my games. I should have the right to have a local setup binary on my computer, like GOG.

      source
    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I may not be understanding the logic here. It sounds like your issue is control. You want to have control over media you bought, and you want to have control over AI models rather than just a subscription.

      There are a number of open models. As far as I can see, these are also largely rejected by this community. In lawsuits against their makers, the community also sides against fair use.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Belgdore@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Personally I think AI training is free use. I also think AI is a fad and generally used as a way to scam people.

    However, artists complain about AI because it pulls from their business (in theory.) Artists generally don’t complain about piracy by the end user because the artist is usually still credited in someway (signature watermark etc.) and piracy doesn’t generally stop other people from paying for their art. AI in theory steals their jobs.

    The main people who complain about traditional piracy are the executives of companies that purchased copyright on artist’s works through contracts that do not favor the artists.

    source
  • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    My line with AI is between AI for profit and AI for fair use.

    source

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Hmm. That’s not how the US legal concept Fair Use works. What do you mean when you say fair use?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Yeah, that’s what happens when you decide on issues separately instead of following a consistent set of principles. I, personally, try to follow a consistent set of principles, with as few caveats as I can muster. Here’s my take:

    • copyright should be much shorter, perhaps back to the original 14 years w/ a single optional renewal of 14 years - principle: information should be freely available; caveat: smaller creators shouldn’t get immediately screwed by a large org with more publishing capacity
    • ISPs should only provide internet, and if a law is broken, LE should go after individuals - principle: personal responsibility, ISPs aren’t responsible for how you use their service, they’re only responsible for providing a consistent service
    • piracy is wrong, but it shouldn’t be prioritized - principle: piracy is a form of theft, since you’re accessing something you don’t have a legal right to; caveat: there’s no evidence that piracy actually reduces sales, and some evidence that it improves it, so let it be

    I think everyone should decide what their principles are, and frame every time they deviate as an exception to those principles instead of just taking every issue at face value. If we don’t have that foundation, everything becomes way too subjective.

    I take my principles from libertarianism (NAP), not from objectivism (Ayn Rand), and I make exceptions based on utilitarianism.

    source
• Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

  source
• BF2040@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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).

    source

    • BF2040@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      A private business should remain private. If the government an take a business away because of public importance, then there is no incentive for a business to grow.

      China, North Korea. They siezed businesses, including internet.

      I think that’s the only point we disagree on.

      I do think ISPs should have much more competition. Exponentially more.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Juice260@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It still makes me feel some type of way that Sony (a Japanese company) gets so much sway over US business and policies. It’s something I thought about a lot when Microsoft was trying to close its deal with Activision. I don’t care much either way about multi-billion dollar conglomerates (or trillions in Microsoft’s case) butting heads but it did strike me as odd that a foreign company had that much of a hold on the deal. I get that piracy of media is frowned upon but like the ISP’s are arguing here, the affects of cutting off access to their clientele would have a lot of negative impact. I once again sit here wondering why a foreign company should have that kind of power over American citizens… you know?

  source

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    May I introduce you to Nintendo?

    source
• werefreeatlast@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The supremes: oh! Yes! We are on your side ISPs! The MPAA and RIAA will now be allowed to sue individual users directly bypassing courts.

  Have fun! You got them boys! You got that 98 year old grandma! Get her house! And that minority girl trying to download the new Beyonce songs? Deathrow! 1 per song! All the single ladies our ass! You wouldn’t download a car! We’re the Supremes! Watch us! But first Trump is president starting now, and poor kids shall get no food in school! They wouldn’t be poor if they got food! Oh and women…we did the abortion thing already darn!..no vote for women! Marriage age 6 now, overruling all states laws.

  source

  • ArtVandelay@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Let’s get you back to your room Mr. Thomas.

    source
• MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Looks like an old-politician idea to me; a generation late. Nowadays, cutting internet is as bad as cutting electricity.

  source
• obbeel@lemmy.eco.br ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

  source
• Kowowow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  There’s got to be a way to just decriminalize piracy

  source

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Sure is.

    Same way that a 12 year old smoking isn’t illegal, providing a 12 year old with cigarettes is.

    Prosecute the profiteers of the industry – the ones making significant money recording or distributing for profit. Not the ones keeping a copy of the 1s and 0s they found laying around somewhere in the internet.

    source
• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Wow, unusual for them but based

  source

  • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    They’re ensuring their money keeps flowing. This isn’t about altruism - it’s just their Greed incidentally benefits us.

    ISPs are trying to mitigate exposure to lawsuits, prevent costly tracking and tracing responsibilities, and make sure customers can keep paying instead of losing their internet privileges (and their internet bills!)

    That peasants like us find this favorable is an unintended bonus.

    source

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Exactly. ISPs want to do as little work as possible and collect as much as possible. If they have to monitor for torrents, track which customers they’ve warned, etc, that’s extra cost that, ultimately, could take away paying customers. So there are no benefits for them unless the piracy is causing problems for other users (i.e. could result in more customers cancelling service).

      source
  • samus12345@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Not really unusual. They don’t care if you pirate stuff, they just want you to pay for internet access. They only sent notices and such to keep the rights holders happy.

    source
• evan@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  So what entity has more pull with the Supreme Court? The MPAA or ISPs? I’m not so sure the answer is clear 😂

  source