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

311–320 of 369 posts

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

#311

Post by Planktonne »

Aerroon wrote: post #272
shiroiuma wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This could lead to a broader culture, because the most popular works would get long copyright protection terms, while the relatively unpopular ones would get short protection terms. People would be more likely to use those unpopular works and perhaps breathe new life into them. Eg imagine if this is how the system worked right now. You could have streamers watch unpopular (modern) movies with their audience. Or a you…

> You could have streamers watch unpopular (modern) movies with their audience. Or a youtuber could read a book to their viewers (listeners).

Why is this something that the government should promote?

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

#312

Post by ok123456 »

forgotaccount3 wrote: post #187
ok123456 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean the entire enforcement regime is now more or less a paper tiger? It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law, but you can simply not follow through and enforce it.

> It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law No. Let's take an example of 401ks. Any company that has a 401k has to pass non-discrimination testing to ensure their plan doesn't favor highly compensated employees over non-highly compensated employees. This is done through Actual Deferral Percentage and Actual Contribution Percentage tests. Just doing these tests can be very costly. If you d…

With 401ks and financial instruments in general, it's cut-and-dry: there's either a payment, or there isn't, and there's a whole accountancy industry that supports that.

With DMCA claims, it's an adversarial accusation with inherent unreliability built into the collection mechanism, usually submitted by third parties. The process doesn't lend itself to the same kind of auditability and accountability as securities and investments.

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

#313

Post by Planktonne »

chii wrote: post #295
jonathanstrange wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You could, you'd just license them at creation time for X years. It would stop large corporations hoarding everything.

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

#314

Post by nekusar »

mmahd7456 wrote: post #209
nekusar wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was expecting that as a response. There is no reason why tax has to be done as property tax. Property tax demeans actual ownership of a place for us to live. (And why the hell do corporations get away with no tax on intellectual property, or even pay on profits, whereas we humans pay on revenue and property?) Worse yet, property taxes also enshrine the idea that the community's schools in poor areas deserve poor ed…

Volunteer firefighters, public schools, and police/sheriffs still need equipment and facilities. Whether you call it property tax or "public services" tax, it amounts to the same thing. The community needs a way to fund the shared community services, and there has to be some sort of metric that determines how much each citizen contributes to the fund.

Do children deserve worse education and schools because the property taxes are lower?

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

#315

Post by ch4s3 »

marco-erppilot wrote: post #299
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.

I mean you wouldn't hold verizon accountable for someone using their cellphone for a criminal conspiracy would you?

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

#316

Post by numbsafari »

jetrink wrote: post #129

Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , also known as the "Betamax case." > (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434. > In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id…

... because if _use_ of a product creates a liability for the maker, you are very quickly headed toward liability for gun manufacturers. [ed: this is very much discussed in the decision, by the by]

Expect to see heavy lobbying from the music and video industry to create some kind of "Know your Customer" regime internet service providers in order to create such a liability.

I wouldn't call this a slam dunk for privacy or liberty, given what it is going to force the various actors to do in response.

For now, though, let the file sharing flow!

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

#317

Post by doomboiardee »

elicash wrote: post #203
doomboiardee wrote: post #151

I wonder if OpenAI, et.al were eagerly awaiting this verdict because once an ISP is liable...well I'm sure you can extrapolate from there.

There are important factual differences compared to the challenges against OpenAI, but I think yes this decision does ultimately offer them some new legal protection against whatever customers decide to do with their tools.

That's a good point too and one I wasn't even trying to make. I was thinking more in terms of how the big LLM players trained their models using torrents etc.

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

#318

Post by naasking »

_2d30 wrote: post #276
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...

I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

> not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

I think the point is that they don't like Sony music because they are so often on the wrong side, this time included.

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

#319

Post by red-iron-pine »

prepend wrote: post #193
mywittyname wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been demonstrated that some companies, even F10 ones, have been using pirated content to train their AI.

Yes, but not demonstrated that that training is illegal.

why is "training" consumption more legal than "recreational" consumption?

stealing bread to feed the birds vs stealing bread to feed your mom -- both are still stealing

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

#320

Post by Eisenstein »

snapcaster wrote: post #308
chii wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.
Post reply on HN