[flagged]
If it isn't on the net, it can't go through prism
Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
61–70 of 369 posts
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What is "financially viable"? Just hoarding copyrighted materials and not distributing them in order to create artificial scarcity could meet that criteria.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#63A 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.
> now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.
I'm not so sure they're unrelated.
The bondage of intellectual property forces very particular branches of human development to the exclusion of others. It's no surprise that restriction of thought and creativity - and most of all, music - is to be found alongside war and predation and uninspired leadership.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#649-0 against the record labels. This effectively ends a long running strategy of trying to milk ISPs for people torrenting without a VPN. At the same time it likely puts things like the *Arr stack at more risk given their more tailored nature.
The media industry has already decided that it should be allowed to turn copyright enforcement into a revenue stream and I doubt they're going to stop their extortion racket now.
This ruling could mean that they'll increase their efforts targeting individuals with threatening letters demanding that they admit wrongdoing and settle for a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars at a time or else get sued in court and be forced to pay a lawyer tens of thousands to defend their innocence. It could mean they actually take more individuals to court instead of dropping the case every time they threaten somebody with enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them at trial.
The media industry is also pushing for more control in other ways as well like blank media style taxes which would let them rake in a steady stream of cash without needing to make make specific accusations. They also still want to be able to force ISPs to instantly blacklist any IPs they accuse of streaming copyrighted content. They've got this power in many countries already and innocent users have already been screwed over by it. They may decide to focus their efforts on getting this pushed through in the US now.
I doubt this ruling will lead to the kinds of broad copyright reforms we need, but it's long past time the courts started pushing back on the insane power grabs of the RIAA/MPA. No other industry could get away with demanding what they have.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#65A 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]
> If you made anything that was worth protecting you might feel differently.
Please don't put those of us who create so-called 'intellectual property' for a living in the middle of this.
We didn't ask for government protection and we don't want it.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#66Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable.
Have I got that right?
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#67So... 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?
This was what GFiber appeared to be doing until it sold out to private equity. I got about 60 DMCA notice emails about torrents that never reached seeding state. About 25% of them were false accusations with wrong titles unrelated to activity by anyone on my network.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#68Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?
That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#69Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?
That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
#70Glad to have one less reason to incentivize ISPs to monitor every single thing we do on the internet.