cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37157681
The battle over a $1 billion piracy judgment against internet provider Cox Communications has reached the Supreme Court, where the company receives broad support. Amicus briefs from the U.S. government, major tech companies, and various other parties, warn that the current ruling creates a dangerous precedent. They argue that the Fourth Circuit ruling, which makes passive service providers liable for their customers’ actions, invokes broad liability and puts people’s internet access at risk.
So my question is, do we want ISPs to be liable? If they are, they will be more likely to cut alleged pirates off. If they aren’t, then a legal door is open for the rights holders to go after individuals directly.
Imagine the utilities company that provides homes with water being liable for somebody getting drowned in a bathtub …
Absolutely not. They should be common carriers with zero weighting and even zero knowledge about what transits their network.
Agreed. This whole lawsuit is one giant looming catastrophe. If ISP’s are found liable for copyright infringement, that will be the effective end of the open internet. From there, I can already see the argument taking shape that ISP’s, telco’s, and account holders are all effectively accomplices in all sorts of crimes facilitated using communications networks.
Oh, hell no.
You do not want the ISPs to be the cops. They are a neutral provider that gives basic Internet access. If that access is to be terminated, it should be done by a court, and there should be a police case.
Having the ISP’s doxx the users is an unfavorable but more proper answer. But every one of those should be a court case at least. Innocent until proven guilty, not just shut down because they think you might be guilty.
about as much as the telephone company is liable for what you say.
arguing over the implementation of a broken system is pointless anyway, they are gonna do whatever is in the shareholders best interest; always.