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

291–300 of 369 posts

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

#291

Post by chii »

shadowgovt wrote: post #287
shevy-java wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really has nothing to do with Sony as such though. This is a common finding; 9:0 is also a clear message. If service providers are held accountable then arms producers also have to be held accountable. Or politicians who drive up prices via racket scheme such as a certain guy using orange powder on his wrinkly face. Someone is stealing money from stock exchange - that is also becoming increasingly clear from the t…

It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do. It's a very "leverage your info to make money no wait not like that" schem…

That's why i would rather see insider trading made legal, but transparent.

Instead of quarterly filings, if you are considered an insider (or is affiliated with one), you are required to have your trades be instantly reported and be public the nanosecond you make them. You are allowed to make use of the insider info, as long as you adhere to these transparency measures.

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

#292

Post by lotsofpulp »

shadowgovt wrote: post #287
shevy-java wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really has nothing to do with Sony as such though. This is a common finding; 9:0 is also a clear message. If service providers are held accountable then arms producers also have to be held accountable. Or politicians who drive up prices via racket scheme such as a certain guy using orange powder on his wrinkly face. Someone is stealing money from stock exchange - that is also becoming increasingly clear from the t…

It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do. It's a very "leverage your info to make money no wait not like that" schem…

> I think I just don't understand what the difference is between an insider who sits on a board (illegal) or has a nephew who's an SVP at the company (illegal) and a politician setting the laws that shape the whole industry (legal apparently?) or gets tips from same (legal apparently?).

This example is just standard issue corruption. Politician gets to exempt themselves, so they do.

> It's always seemed fundamentally flawed to me that the exchange laws are designed to prevent people benefitting from insider information but then the entire purpose of the stock exchange is to make money by leveraging information asymmetry to make choices other rational actors wouldn't make because you have more knowledge or data than they do.

Insider trading laws are designed to prevent people that can affect business outcomes from benefiting by affecting those outcomes. For example, a senior executive screwing up a crucial delivery to gain money from short positions.

The idea is society benefits from the assumption that all executives are ideally holding long positions on their business.

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

#293

Post by chii »

autoexec wrote: post #34
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 agree with you that 10 years is more than enough time for corporations to turn a healthy profit on something (not that they can't continue to make money off of a work after it has entered the public domain), but this wasn't a small victory. If every ISP were at risk of being on the hook for endless billions in damages because of what their users did it would mean that ISPs would be forced to give in to the RIAA/MPA…

> ISPs would be forced to give in to the RIAA/MPAs demands to permanently terminate the accounts of internet users over completely unproven (and often inaccurate) accusations of piracy.

and this is already true today, except instead of being ISPs, it's youtube and other user generated content platforms.

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

#294

Post by chii »

snowwrestler wrote: post #205
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.

If copyright was only a decade then Sony could have waited 5 more years and made the movie of Project Hail Mary without paying one dime to Andy Weir. I think the law is too long now, but a decade is too short to protect artists. Even a patent is 20 years.

> made the movie of Project Hail Mary without paying one dime to Andy Weir.

and is there anything really wrong with that?

I personally would have liked to see fan made movies of various IPs like star wars, and harry potter, but it is impossible due to the long reach of copyright infringement.

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

#295

Post by chii »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #133
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 think it should be for a lifetime of the original author and non-transferable. The system is already rigged very much against artists, it's amazing how many people still contribute to culture under the given conditions. I don't see any reason why someone who writes a Christmas song or a novel shouldn't have a possibility to get payments for their works until they die, for example. However, I have a lot of problems…

> non-transferable

so you can't create works for hire than?

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

#296

Post by lotsofpulp »

shiroiuma wrote: post #262
jonny_eh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cox cable pays legislators to limit people’s access to wired broadband internet service at their home (by banning government internet utilities), allowing them to charge higher prices due to having a monopoly. And they provide substandard asymmetric broadband because their customers have no choice.

Proof: compare the quality and price of their service in neighborhoods with access to fiber to the home as opposed to just having access to Cox via coaxial cable.

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

#298

Post by ghaff »

shiroiuma wrote: post #267
wildzzz wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reco…

And in fact you had big video cameras attached to battery packs going back to at least the 70s. The tech existed. It was just clunky and barely suitable for consumers.

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

#299

Post by marco-erppilot »

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…

So the Supreme Court unanimously let Cox off the hook basically ruling that just providing internet access isn't enough to pin contributory infringement on an ISP, even if users are clearly pirating. Big win for ISPs, tough news for the labels.

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

#300

Post by aaronmdjones »

esseph wrote: post #50
prepend wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI training might be copyright infringement. But there’s no cases or laws to establish that. I don’t think this case or anything else has been affected by AI training on copyrighted material, if it is deemed infringing.

What? Anthropic ($1.5B+ Settlement): In September 2025, Anthropic agreed to pay at least $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit over using roughly 500,000 copyrighted books from "shadow libraries" to train their Claude LLMs.

> > AI training might be copyright infringement. But there’s no cases or laws to establish that.

> In September 2025, Anthropic agreed to pay at least $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit over using roughly 500,000 copyrighted books from "shadow libraries" to train their Claude LLMs.

Yes, but not because they were training LLMs with it. The judge in the case found specifically that training the LLMs on the copyrighted material was not copyright infringement; the only copyright infringement Anthropic had committed was acquiring the material itself. In other words, if they had legally bought all of the books they used, they would have been able to train their LLMs on them with no recourse from rights holders.

Post reply on HN