839

ISPs tell Supreme Court they don’t want to disconnect users accused of piracy (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] General_Effort@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months 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.

[-] KaiReeve@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I don't think anybody here is siding with ISPs. We're just happy to hear that they're having difficulties policing piracy.

When I say individual rights I mean any and all rights an individual has or should have. In the case of piracy, an individual should have a right to entertainment media at a reasonable cost. The more corporations increase the cost of media access, the more piracy proliferates. In the case of AI, an individual should have the right to earn a living. Corporations are using the works of individuals to ultimately increase their own profits without due compensation to the individual.

I don't know how you got to pro conservative capitalism from a single anti-corporatist statement, but it likely took you several leaps of logic that I'm not going to even try to follow.

[-] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I see how I misunderstood.

This conception of individual rights seems rather ad hoc. I don't think I could have guessed that that's what you meant, rather than copyrights.

I don't see the connection to copyright, in any case. How does fair use interfere with anyone's right to earn a living? And if it does, why support the Internet Archive?

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024

839 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59583 readers

2499 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS