Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#31

Post by ygjb »

boplicity wrote: post #10
prophesi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, if you're a renter and utilities are included in your rent, be sure to check the lease if there's a clause that prohibits high electricity consuming activities like running a home media server, a cryptominer, or growing certain plants.

I lived in a building that had the cost of electricity included in the rent for long-term tenants, but newer tenants had to pay for their own electricity use. One person I knew in the building was using their "free" electricity to mine cryptocurrency. This was, in my opinion, not far from stealing. Was it legal? Probably? Was it ethical? Not by a long shot.

Why was it unethical? Did the activity violate the contract?

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#32

Post by runlevel1 »

ryandrake wrote: post #13
wyldfire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. The ISP is the actual medium whose network was used to copy the alleged infringing content. So that's not analogous to all the utilities in use by the infringer.

I think the key differentiator is that Cox [somehow] knew that the customer was using their network to copy the alleged infringing content. The electric company doesn't know this, and (to use another example) the hard drive manufacturer doesn't know that their customer is storing the content on the drives the make. If I were Cox, I suppose I would be incentivized to operate kind of like a VPN and just not store logs…

How they "know": The copyright holders join a torrent swarm and log all IPs that give them pieces of their copyrighted content. They then send infringement complaints to the IPs' ISPs alleging that someone with that IP was infringing on their copyright at the given date and time.

There are a number of reasons an ISP might not know who had a given IP at a given date and time. DHCP and CGNAT are two big ones. And the rare individuals who choose to fight do sometimes use that as a defense.

However, those technologies have a purpose other than anonymizing activity. A residential ISP who took active measures to obscure their customers activity would have a harder time defending against a complaint of negligence.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#33

Post by lolinder »

ygjb wrote: post #31
boplicity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in a building that had the cost of electricity included in the rent for long-term tenants, but newer tenants had to pay for their own electricity use. One person I knew in the building was using their "free" electricity to mine cryptocurrency. This was, in my opinion, not far from stealing. Was it legal? Probably? Was it ethical? Not by a long shot.

Why was it unethical? Did the activity violate the contract?

Violating the contract would be a clear legal question, ethics is more fuzzy and down to personal interpretation but usually isn't dependent on the letters in the contract.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#34

Post by matthewowen »

ygjb wrote: post #31
boplicity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in a building that had the cost of electricity included in the rent for long-term tenants, but newer tenants had to pay for their own electricity use. One person I knew in the building was using their "free" electricity to mine cryptocurrency. This was, in my opinion, not far from stealing. Was it legal? Probably? Was it ethical? Not by a long shot.

Why was it unethical? Did the activity violate the contract?

It’s a residential lease, but the power use is for a non-residential purpose. So arguably yes.

I wonder what a court would say. It’s not clear to me either way. As a practical matter it seems like leases with utilities included shouldn’t need to enumerate all the non-residential things you aren’t allowed to do with those utilities.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#35

Post by roenxi »

boplicity wrote: post #10
prophesi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, if you're a renter and utilities are included in your rent, be sure to check the lease if there's a clause that prohibits high electricity consuming activities like running a home media server, a cryptominer, or growing certain plants.

I lived in a building that had the cost of electricity included in the rent for long-term tenants, but newer tenants had to pay for their own electricity use. One person I knew in the building was using their "free" electricity to mine cryptocurrency. This was, in my opinion, not far from stealing. Was it legal? Probably? Was it ethical? Not by a long shot.

There is a valuable lesson there for whatever fool wrote the contract. Don't promise someone uncapped use of something like that for a fixed price. Especially not electricity.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#36

Post by mysteria »

whatshisface wrote: post #20
boplicity wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious if anyone thinks if mining crypto in this case is ethical. If so, why? (It wasn't just a small amount -- there were many computers, running 24/7.)

I wonder how running several computers would compare to other high-current draws that we would consider normal use, like using an electric oven a lot (3kw, plausibly 10 computers).

The oven won't be on 24/7 and even if you're baking the elements cycle on and off (that's why you hear the clicking relays). You'll have to integrate it over a month and compare that to the constant consumption of a mining rig.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#37

Post by edm0nd »

ryandrake wrote: post #2

Wow, a case between an ISP cartel member and a copyright cartel member. Hard to pick one to root for. Somehow neither side managed to make the other side look like the good guy. You'd think ISPs would do their darnedest to make it so they don't have a way of knowing what content is flowing over their pipes, to help avoid accusations of contributory infringement. ALSO: The photo of an Internet Pirate is amazing.

Honestly, I'm siding with the EFF on this one.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/if-not-overturned-bad-...

They are a great org fighting for our digital rights.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#38

Post by boplicity »

roenxi wrote: post #35
boplicity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in a building that had the cost of electricity included in the rent for long-term tenants, but newer tenants had to pay for their own electricity use. One person I knew in the building was using their "free" electricity to mine cryptocurrency. This was, in my opinion, not far from stealing. Was it legal? Probably? Was it ethical? Not by a long shot.

There is a valuable lesson there for whatever fool wrote the contract. Don't promise someone uncapped use of something like that for a fixed price. Especially not electricity.

In the province I live in, the government writes the rental contract. Individuals and businesses aren't allowed to write it.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#39

Post by Spivak »

roenxi wrote: post #35
boplicity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in a building that had the cost of electricity included in the rent for long-term tenants, but newer tenants had to pay for their own electricity use. One person I knew in the building was using their "free" electricity to mine cryptocurrency. This was, in my opinion, not far from stealing. Was it legal? Probably? Was it ethical? Not by a long shot.

There is a valuable lesson there for whatever fool wrote the contract. Don't promise someone uncapped use of something like that for a fixed price. Especially not electricity.

The more realistic lesson is don't apply programmer logic to legal contracts where the courts will apply reasonableness tests, side with the landlord, and stick you with a many thousand dollar bill.

It's like how pricing mistakes on websites are in the consumer's favor when they're small but in the sellers favor when they're large because it's unreasonable to assume someone would be selling a $450 item for $4.50.

Re: Court blocks $1B copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users' piracy

#40

Post by roenxi »

Spivak wrote: post #39
roenxi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a valuable lesson there for whatever fool wrote the contract. Don't promise someone uncapped use of something like that for a fixed price. Especially not electricity.

The more realistic lesson is don't apply programmer logic to legal contracts where the courts will apply reasonableness tests, side with the landlord, and stick you with a many thousand dollar bill. It's like how pricing mistakes on websites are in the consumer's favor when they're small but in the sellers favor when they're large because it's unreasonable to assume someone would be selling a $450 item for $4.50.

If an idiot landlord gets into court because a tenant took their contract literally, they're a fool who has hopefully learned a valuable albeit very expensive lesson about writing contracts.
Post reply on HN