Rare good decision from SCOTUS.
[flagged]
Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
41–50 of 369 posts
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still haven't bought a Sony labelled product since... though I may or may not have consumed Sony content. They've definitely lost more than they gained.
> They've definitely lost more than they gained. That's a pretty good sized ego you got yourself there. The number of people that cared about the rootkit in the general populace was insignificant to Sony. Only tech nerds like us even knew about the rootkit or how insane it was to use. Unless you were a huge flagship purchaser of Sony's latest/greatest each year, they don't even notice you when you buy a TV or any oth…
> Lost more than they gained (from me, implied).
Maybe, just maybe assume the best in people instead of jumping to the worst interpretations you can.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#43So... does that mean we don't have to care about takedown notices anymore? Like, the only reason to comply with such an onerous and censorious takedown regime was specifically to disclaim contributory copyright liability that SCOTUS just unanimously decided to erase. Is it such that as long as people aren't stupid and don't market their services as an infringement facilitator, which most don't, that they don't have t…
This is about moving bits through the pipes and not the resources that those pipes are moving.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#44So... does that mean we don't have to care about takedown notices anymore? Like, the only reason to comply with such an onerous and censorious takedown regime was specifically to disclaim contributory copyright liability that SCOTUS just unanimously decided to erase. Is it such that as long as people aren't stupid and don't market their services as an infringement facilitator, which most don't, that they don't have t…
It seems like you would still have to remove the infringing content, but no need to disconnect or ban the user who shared it.
But if you’re a pure ISP and not hosting content on your own servers, then I guess, yeah DMCA doesn’t really apply to you?
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#45A 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…
How about something like IP as a tax? IE: if you make profit off of it, then it cranks up. There's plenty of music artists who's song blow up a decade or more later.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#46A 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…
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.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI training
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.
It's been demonstrated that some companies, even F10 ones, have been using pirated content to train their AI.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#48A 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]
I'd expect most people in this forum have made something "worth protecting" or even make a living doing so. Certainly it's been my career. I still think we should drastically shorten copyrights and expect more to grant it. e.g. for software, require source escrow to the copyright office and probably require source availability to purchasers, and ban things like hardware that only runs signed software. Basically the law should be GPL without redistribution, but where you could hire a programmer to fix things for you and maybe share your diff. Or just straight GPL (i.e. software should not be eligible for copyright as it's a functional thing, not a creative thing, and consumer protection law should make it mandatory to provide source and a way to load your own version for any device that has it). For other works, registration fees should cover storage of a master copy until expiration + N years so it can be released to the public. Maybe "source material" there as well wherever it makes sense. I understand that might make my career less lucrative. That's fine.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The current term in the US is like life +70 years, or something. While 10 is arbitrary, I like it because it is much closer to balancing incentive for creativity vs stifling creativity. I make software and data. It’s worth protecting. But I think the harm from copyright protection has been greater than the benefit. Framing it as people who want reasonable copyright as anti-creator is so not cool and avoids discussion…
can’t IP be sold to a company that is “alive” for as long as it’s financially viable.
I always wonder when copyright runs out for artist who sold their collections to companies.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI training
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.