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

Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 369 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#261

Post by Joker_vD »

nine_k wrote: post #155
frenchtoast8 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less c…

I suppose that selling is not necessary, distribution is. Record a movie off cable TV, share with your friends, and lo and behold, they're not going to buy the licensed VHS tape! And maybe even not going to subscribe to cable TV! Losses, losses everywhere.

Several years ago, I've read about a similar case somewhere in Europe (Germany?): a group of friends gathered together for a party, and it was either some show on the cable, or they blared some broadcasted music on the loudspeakers, or something, but somehow the police got involved, and the guy at whose house they've gathered was found guilty for illegal broadcasting/retransmission, because apparently, if more than 3 people (without familial bonds) watch the same TV or something like that, then yeah, it's broadcasting, and you need the license and the rights to the material.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#262

Post by shiroiuma »

jonny_eh wrote: post #255
djoldman wrote: post #110

For those like myself who wanted context: > Cox Communications v. Sony Music, 607 U.S.___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the liability of an internet service provider for its subscribers engaging in copyright infringement. > Cox Communications was sued by multiple music labels for lax enforcement of its users engaged in sharing the labels' copyrighted music, arging Cox finacially benefitted…

I wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

Yep, on the evil scale, Sony Music definitely ranks well ahead of Cox Cable.

Now, if this were Comcast vs. Sony Music, it would be a closer call, but I still think Sony would have the edge.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#263

Post by Gigachad »

autoexec wrote: post #111
acomjean wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great idea. Free then make it cost more. A lot could enter the public domain, and valuable IP could be kept by companies as long as they’re willing to pay.

I think that's a horrible idea. There's zero benefit to society in letting corporations like Disney that can afford to pay keep works out of the public domain longer than others.

With an increasing cost for age, they would eventually be paying an absurd amount for content of decreasing value. Either they end up funding the government massively, or they decide to drop commercially irrelevant copyright.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#264

Post by Gigachad »

foresto wrote: post #160
xoa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree that any single fixed term makes sense. Rather, I think it'd be better if the exponential cost to society (in terms of works that don't happen, and works that don't happen based on those works that didn't happen and so on compounding) was just part of the yearly renewal price. Do maybe everyone gets 7 years flat to start with, then it costs $100*1.3^(year). So after another 25 years it'd be aroun…

I think I like the idea, but I can't help wondering if it would have unforeseen consequences. Could this approach undermine the protections afforded by open-source licenses? (IANAL.)

Only for 10+ year old versions. You'd be able to re license ancient stuff but it would be so far behind it wouldn't be all that relevant.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#265

Post by aidenn0 »

kccqzy wrote: post #232
aidenn0 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower circuit court said they did, Supreme Court overturned that.

I don’t think so. They need to have the policy of terminating accounts and actually terminate a subset of them. They just can’t be held liable for not terminating all of them.

From the decision:

> The Fourth Circuit’s holding went beyond the two forms of liability recognized in Grokster and Sony by holding that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is . . . sufficient for contributory infringement.” 93 F. 4th 222, 236. This holding went beyond the two bases for contributory liability recognized in the Court’s precedent and conflicted with the Court’s repeated admonition that contributory liability cannot rest only on a provider’s knowledge of infringement and insufficient action to prevent it. Pp. 9–10.

> (c) Sony argues that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor—under which Internet service providers cannot be secondarily liable for certain forms of copyright infringement if they have implemented “a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders” who “are repeated infringers,” 17 U. S. C. §512(i)(1)(A)—would have no effect if Internet service providers are not liable for providing Internet service to known infringers. The DMCA does not expressly impose liability for Internet service providers who serve known infringers; it merely creates new defenses from liability for such providers. The DMCA itself made clear that failure to comply with the safe-harbor rules “shall not bear adversely upon . . . a defense by the service provider,” as here, “that the service provider’s conduct is not infringing.” §512(l). P. 10.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#266

Post by bahmboo »

Henchman21 wrote: post #249
bahmboo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This speaks to first principles. I don't want judges making law - and any good judge doesn't want to make law. Laws are from elected legislatures. Of course this is all wishful thinking.

Isn't "judges making law" a key feature of common law systems? IANAL, obviously, I would know the answer to such a basic question if I were. But this is my understanding, and given that this case is in the US and the US is based on common law, I'm genuinely curious if you're advocating the US change to civil law?

Judge's rulings set precedence. So as a judge you can point to another judge, usually up the chain, and say "this is what those laws mean". Legislators write laws that are very broad and ill defined. Almost on purpose. Then the judges have to figure it out. I don't like that. It is an ill defined spec and we dump the details onto a judge who may or may not have any idea of what is going on.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#267

Post by shiroiuma »

wildzzz wrote: post #200
WarmWash wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that that judgement was made in 1981, it's possible that the judges (who were likely a bunch of depression era old dudes) had zero knowledge or exposure, and had never even thought much about, personal video recording before a bunch of lawyers tried to explain it to them during the case. We have see this happen repeatedly with modern tech cases.

I doubt that. Home video recording, while a new thing in 1981, was not substantially different from making personal mixtapes on tape from radio or vinyl records which had been popular for decades. My grandfather had dozens of 4 track mixtape reels he made in the 60s. You could even go further back and say it wasn't any different than taking a photo of artwork for personal use. You didn't have to be that young in 1981…

They had the ability to record video at home LONG before 1981. People had handheld "Super 8" film cameras ages before this, which they used to film their own home movies. Of course, this is a little different from videocassettes, just like LPs are different from audio cassettes, but it didn't take a genius to see that home video was going to move to videocassettes before long, they just needed cameras that could record directly to them instead of to film.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#268

Post by Dylan16807 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #123
thot_experiment wrote: post #9

A tiny victory. Copyright should not be more than a decade. This intellectual property system is one of the worst things to happen in modern society is what I would have said a few years ago, now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.

[flagged]

Because we live in a society.

New versions of ideas should be available to all of us after a certain amount of time.

And I can equally ask why you think others should have the right to control you and stop you from imitating them.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#269

Post by shiroiuma »

xoa wrote: post #31
thot_experiment wrote: post #9

A tiny victory. Copyright should not be more than a decade. This intellectual property system is one of the worst things to happen in modern society is what I would have said a few years ago, now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.

I'm not sure I agree that any single fixed term makes sense. Rather, I think it'd be better if the exponential cost to society (in terms of works that don't happen, and works that don't happen based on those works that didn't happen and so on compounding) was just part of the yearly renewal price. Do maybe everyone gets 7 years flat to start with, then it costs $100*1.3^(year). So after another 25 years it'd be aroun…

Yep, I've been proposing a similar system literally for decades now in online discussions like this. If you dig through Slashdot posts from 20 years ago, you might find something from me saying something similar.

It makes sense too: some things just aren't very profitable, and some are. If it's really worth it to the creator, they can pay for it. If they want to keep it locked up for 75 years, they better be prepared to pay very handsomely.

One problem I see with this system is: how does someone know if what they're trying to copy is protected by copyright or not? The government would have to maintain a public database to query. Another possible problem is the Berne convention, which harmonizes copyright across countries.

But yeah, the system we have now is terrible.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#270

Post by shiroiuma »

autoexec wrote: post #111
acomjean wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great idea. Free then make it cost more. A lot could enter the public domain, and valuable IP could be kept by companies as long as they’re willing to pay.

I think that's a horrible idea. There's zero benefit to society in letting corporations like Disney that can afford to pay keep works out of the public domain longer than others.

How does getting tons of money from Disney into a government's tax coffers not benefit society? That's money that the government wouldn't need to directly collect from citizens other ways.
Post reply on HN