Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Piracy The Courts United States

Supreme Court Wants US Input On Whether ISPs Should Be Liable For Users' Piracy (arstechnica.com) 38

Posted by BeauHD from the blame-game dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Supreme Court signaled it may take up a case that could determine whether Internet service providers must terminate users who are accused of copyright infringement. In an order (PDF) issued today, the court invited the Department of Justice's solicitor general to file a brief "expressing the views of the United States."

In Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, the major record labels argue that cable provider Cox should be held liable for failing to terminate users who were repeatedly flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads. There was a mixed ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as the appeals court affirmed a jury's finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement but reversed a verdict on vicarious infringement "because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement." That ruling vacated a $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. Cox and Sony are both seeking a Supreme Court review. Cox wants to overturn the finding of willful contributory infringement, while Sony wants to reinstate the $1 billion verdict.

The Supreme Court asking for US input on Sony v. Cox could be a precursor to the high court taking up the case. For example, the court last year asked the solicitor general to weigh in on Texas and Florida laws that restricted how social media companies can moderate their platforms. The court subsequently took up the case and vacated lower-court rulings, making it clear that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Wants US Input On Whether ISPs Should Be Liable For Users' Piracy More | Reply

Supreme Court Wants US Input On Whether ISPs Should Be Liable For Users' Piracy

Comments Filter:

  • They are Internet Service *Providers* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tomahawk ( 1343 ) on Monday November 25, 2024 @06:35PM (#64972087) Homepage

    not Internet Service Police.

    Policing should not be their job. It should never be their job.

    Why isn't that obvious???

    • I think it has to do with "common carrier" status. A common carrier has to treat everyone equally. They don't want to do that, but they don't want to be held responsible for what content they choose to carry either.

      • Was AT&T responsible for phone scams or prank calls?

      • Common carrier is a bugaboo of the right wing who want to be able to say Nazi stuff and not get banned by the advertisers (because let's not kid ourselves, it's the advertisers banning them, not the platforms).

        They also want to be able to dox and harass their opponents. Again, without getting banned.

        They do not, of course, want to extend any of this to said opponents.

        None of this matters, because Section 230 of the CDA explicitly protects the creators of a software based communication platform f

        • They also want to be able to dox and harass their opponents. Again, without getting banned.

          A bit late for one of them [imgur.com].

        • The case isn't about platforms, it is about ISPs where common carrier status does matter. If ISPs aren't treated as common carriers, than they could be held liable for piracy committed by their users.

          I also don't think there's as much money on the piracy side of the battle as folks here would like to imagine. Comcast owns Universal, which is a big IP holder, and I really can't see them flying the Jolly Roger on this one.

          • requires repealing S230. Or the Supreme Court could just ignore the law. They've been doing that a lot lately and unless they're paying attention most right wingers agree with them.

            I say "unless you're paying attention" because they've struck down dozens of laws & rules that would've increase everyone's pay, gave us cleaner and safer water and air, and stopped businesses from abusing us.

            But hey, ignorance is bliss. Until it isn't.

        • I didn't think of my comment as "right wing", nor do I think of myself as such. I do think if an web site wants to be immune from responsibility for what it carries, it cannot police it beyond what is proscribed by law. If a web site. or social media, or any other site curates its content, it should be held responsible for what it publishes. How does this differ from traditional media? Maybe I'm missing something.

          • it means you've absorbed a right wing talking point and you're boosting it without even being aware of it.

            Propaganda works unless you're hyper aware of it to an almost unhealthy degree...

    • It IS obvious, as are most of the other simple legal arguments people are posting (such as the whole innocent until proven guilty bit).

      So obvious, in fact, that I suspect "asking for input" really means "soliciting the interested parties to bribe against each other."

  • The term liable is in the domain of law so the intent and the spirit of the act is primary. I'm imagining a whole chain of licensing agreements that in a totally logical world makes someone somewhere liable. So logically enough everyone reading this is probably committing some felony as they are reading this..... Turing enforcement is going to be so simple....

  • Stupid ideas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Monday November 25, 2024 @06:40PM (#64972109)

    The MPAA / RIAA have decided it's too much work to go after individual copyright infringers, so they
    want to put the burden of policing the entire internet onto the ISP's themselves.

    For them, it's far easier to sue one entity ( and more profitable ) than it is to go through the process
    of unmasking every John / Jane Doe on the internet whom they accuse of copyright infringement.

    -emphasis on accuse-

    Until someone has been found guilty and exhausted all appeals, they are considered innocent until
    proven otherwise in this Country. ( At least, that's how it's -supposed- to work )

    You don't get to start doling out punishments until the aforementioned court processes have concluded.
    ( Which are expensive. Thus the reason they don't want to bother going that route. )

    • The MPAA / RIAA have decided it's too much work to go after individual copyright infringers, so they want to put the burden of policing the entire internet onto the ISP's themselves.

      This feels intentionally obtuse. The copyright holders go after the ISPs because they don't know which user has had a specific IP address assigned to them - But they do know which ISP has ownership of that IP address.

      Furthermore, the ISP does not want to responsible for unmasking the personal data of their users - So they

    • Why not cut the suspected users power while they are at it? I mean, without power, they'll be unable to power their router. How about cutting someone's water off who is accused of using a patented method to distill water?
    • In Canada, on the the best pieces of legislation passed by Stephen Harper many years ago was to allow lawsuits of individual copyright violators, but limit the maximum collective liability to $5000. That doesn’t even cover the retainer of the sleaziest lawyer (and as if they are all sleazy). This effectively killed lawsuits for private copyright violations. Now if only we could get Trudeau out and back to sensible government.

  • Not "found guilty of"?

    It seems that Sony has stolen the plot of my new movie. It is about the beginnings of a new corporatist police state where the right to due process under the law no longer exists.

    I say: Unplug their Internet.

    • I was immediately struck by that. Terminate the ==accused?== Oh sure, what could go wrong? Unplug their intertubes? Given the necessity for internet conx today, to disco someone not convicted by a court is evil. Damn, I'm grateful to be old today, the future's gonna SUCK like disco! Good luck, kids!

  • accused of copyright infringement with no trail and poor standard of evidence?

  • I can barely trust the ISPs to provide an accurate invoice, why would I trust them with getting the law correct?

  • If ISPs are liable for repeat offenders (Score:5, Insightful)

    by taustin ( 171655 ) on Monday November 25, 2024 @07:24PM (#64972211) Homepage Journal

    Then copyright holders need to be liable for false reports. Preferably criminally liable, for whoever puts their name to the complaint without verifying it is valid. At the very least, any lawyers (and it's always a lawyer) who put their name to a false complaint should be automatically disbarred, absent any evidence of deliberate deception against them.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This. I do a parody music project focused on one specific band. 2 of the 4 songs I've done had complaints regarding copyright, and I appealed and won. The kicker is that it was some Brazilian company claiming rights to a United States based band, and while they might have Brazilian distribution rights (never looked any further), I believe they (and others) somehow manage to obtain the rights and then wait until the "offender" doesn't appeal and just collect any streaming money.
  • I thought they resigned when they ruled that the Constitution is unconstitutional in the 14th Amendment case of Trump not being eligible for office. Or maybe when they ruled the Constitution unconstitutional in saying Presidents are above the laws that create their authority. Or the case where they ruled that bribery of Supreme Court Justices is legal.

  • Copyright vs. Guns (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr.Wizard ( 5905580 ) on Monday November 25, 2024 @08:10PM (#64972345)
    Gun manufacturers are not liable for murders. Car manufacturers are not liable for car wrecks (that are the driver's stupid fault, mechanical failure notwithstanding). Nearly all products and services can also be used to help commit crimes. Why go after the ISPs? Why not Intel, HP, Microsoft, and Apple? What about the routers? Shouldn't they be suing Cisco?

  • The phone company isn't liable if someone plays copyrighted music down the phone line, why should that same phone company be liable if someone sends the same music down the same phone line except as digital bits instead of analog audio?

  • what happens when an upstream ISP cuts off an 911 center
    based on an accusation to some place in the city that may have free wifi or free internet access.
    And the accusation flags an IP that is part of some city / area network link.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?

Close