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

41–50 of 93 posts

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

#41

Post by emacdona »

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.

Eh… I will always find it easy to root against Sony. They embedded rootkits in media they produced for PAYING customers [1]

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo...

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

#42

Post by LoganDark »

bombcar wrote: post #26
LoganDark wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they are the reason newer tenants had to pay, but the landlord couldn't change their lease until the last one expires

Possible, but more likely the landlord (or new owner) realized that if you can switch to tenant-billed even with a rent drop, you have a more valuable property overall - if most of the apartments in the area are tenant-billed.

True, rent prices are typically the most important figure for any property. Everything else comes secondary - if you're halfway down the search results because of your prices, almost nobody will even see that utilities are included.

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

#43

Post by mjevans »

boplicity wrote: post #38
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.

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

That sounds lovely and refreshing... Please get that into the USA so I don't have to READ 40+ pages every year!

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

#44

Post by thwarted »

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.

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.

My understanding is that ISP don't want to be seen as dumb pipes, despite that it would probably absolve them of a lot of responsibility and liability, because dumb pipes are effectively a commodity and thus a race to the bottom price-wise. Of course, in many US markets, they have this locked up and are a monopoly anyway. This is may be (slightly) less of a focus now, but back in the 90s, ISPs saw piled on extra services as differentiators and lock in, which is why you might have had an email address in your ISP's domain, or (in the case of cable internet) Video On Demand services tied in with internet access, or even things like content filtering (to appeal to parents). ISPs have tried a lot of different things to avoid being considered dumb pipes.

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

#45

Post by samatman »

boplicity wrote: post #18
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.

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.)

Tenancy is a contractual relationship. It doesn't include ethical sidequests like making sure your landlord doesn't pay large electrical bills which he has agreed to pay as part of the contract. Electricity is metered, making it the landlord's responsibility to put an "up to X KW a month" clause in the contract. That electricity isn't free, the scare quotes don't change that. It's cost-included.

Your opprobrium appears to hinge on the idea that this tenant would only mine crypto if the power is provided on a single-bill, all-you-can-eat basis, which I don't see as a safe assumption here. The tenant got a good deal. That happens sometimes. If landlord ever notices, he'll put another clause in the contracts going forward. Live and learn.

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

#47

Post by charles_f »

thwarted wrote: post #44
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.

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. My understanding is that ISP don't want to be seen as dumb pipes, despite that it would probably absolve them of a lot of responsibility and liability, because dumb pipes are effectively a commodity and thus a race to the bottom pric…

Ironically I would probably pay more for a dumber, but more reliable pipe.

My operator changed my modem, and its configuration is "easier than ever!" (says the manual). That is, you have to use your account page on their website to change the wifi settings, and the more advanced part of it you must install an app on your phone. But you can't specify a custom DNS (which I'm sure the default router firmware would let you do).

So yeah, just give me a modem, and I'll do everything myself.

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

#48

Post by lnxg33k1 »

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.

Omg I lived in a house with electricity included, got the contract pre-covid, as a flatshare, we were all respectful of a fair unwritten usage quota, you know, then covid passed, and since in Netherlands rent prices went to the stars, the landlord tried to evict us with bad excuses, failing (you can't evict in NL tenants of more than 1 year 8 months without good cause), then he tried to raise the rent more than 2% per year (you can't, that's why he wanted to evict us, so you can rent the same place at any arbitrary price), then he tried to raise electricity bills by removing them from being included in the rent (you can't), anyway, we got tired, I think we turned on 5 TVs per day every day all day, PC on all day every day, there was a power price crisis in NL for a while during Ukraine war, I think we bankrupted the guy, it was amazing to see him to try to squeeze any cent from us failing without recourse

Landlords are the only true illegal aliens

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

#49

Post by Semaphor »

charles_f wrote: post #47
thwarted wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. My understanding is that ISP don't want to be seen as dumb pipes, despite that it would probably absolve them of a lot of responsibility and liability, because dumb pipes are effectively a commodity and thus a race to the bottom pric…

Ironically I would probably pay more for a dumber, but more reliable pipe. My operator changed my modem, and its configuration is "easier than ever!" (says the manual). That is, you have to use your account page on their website to change the wifi settings, and the more advanced part of it you must install an app on your phone. But you can't specify a custom DNS (which I'm sure the default router firmware would let y…

While I’m glad I can do it at all, my cable modem requires logging into their webservice, and flip a switch there to turn it from modem + router into just a modem. Still confuses me how that’s not a setting in the modem interface.

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

#50

Post by whaleofatw2022 »

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.

I mean I hate -other- parts of Cox but AFA cablecos go, they weren't comcast bad at least?
Post reply on HN