• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The Supreme Court signaled it may take up a case that could determine whether Internet service providers must terminate users who are accused of copyright infringement.

    This is insane. If this was to be ruled in favor of, it could be used to stifle dissent just by saying someone violated copyright. Fucking dangerous shit, and shouldn’t even be considered, which is probably why they’ll rule that it’s totally cool to do.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Especially when you’re considering that anyone who has ever shared a meme has engaged in minor copyright violations.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      It doesn’t seem in the ISPs interest to pursue, they would just lose customers. Unless they also provide cable/satellite television services.

  • doctortofu@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 days ago

    Should gun manufacturers be liable for user’s murders? No? Then fuck off and leave ISPs alone…

    • just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Thats not a good comparison, guns are designed to kill (whether good or bad, legal or illegal)

      ISPs or internet has quite a lot of other uses than piracy.

      Your intent is right, but the example is wrong…

      • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Nah, it’s a great example, for exactly the reason you said.

        The argument for holding gun manufacturers liable is BETTER than the argument for ISPs, so if it doesn’t work for gun manufacturers, it DEFINITELY doesn’t work for ISPs.

      • doctortofu@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Really? I’m very much for strict gun control, but do you really think if a person kills someone with a hammer (or a knife, or a spoon), the manufacturer of the murder weapon should be liable for that?

        • Mac@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think it would be funny, if that’s what you’re asking.

        • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          I mean… Guns are made to kill shit… Its only function is kill or gravely mame. You’re not rebuilding your house using bullets, or carving your Thanksgiving turkey with an extended magazine.

          Not saying gun manufacturers should be liable, but you understand the difference between “product designed to kill quickly and effectively, end masse, used to kill” and “product designed to perform useful life function used to awkwardly, and inefficiently kill” right?.. Right?

          Just because you hold gun manufacturers liable for how their product is used, doesn’t mean you have to hold apple orchards liable if someone grinds to thousands of apple seeds to poison someone with arsenic. We are allowed to make distinctions based on reasonable intent. You get that right?

          Like, we can ban butterfly knives and switch blades but not chefs knives, because while both are just sharp angled pieces of metal, one is designed for kitchen utility and one is designed for concealment and stabbing.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s a little different. I think auto manufacturers should have regulations that help protect drivers when they’re not driving at their best. Things like seat belts are a simple example.

  • uhmbah@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Might as well extend this to cell phones. Should providers be liable for everything that’s said over those calls?

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a tough one since there is no clear “this side is owners and the other side are just worthless regular citizens we don’t give a fuck about.” Both sides of this one are owners. SCOTUS must really be in a bind here.

  • henfredemars
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    I honestly don’t know what an insane court would rule either way.