Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn’t be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks.
While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy “would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access.” The legal question presented by the case “is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet,” they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday.
Terminating service over allegations of piracy. Kicking someone off the internet because an automated copyright system accused them of piracy. That’s crazy.
How can you hold a company responsible for someone else’s actions? When someone hits someone with a car we don’t go after the manufacturer. I think ISPs should only be held accountable for their own actions.
I think they’re trying to apply the same logic that’s applied to internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter, etc., where the platform is only non-liable for copyright violations on their platform if they have a good-faith system in place for preventing copyright infringement and responding to DMCA requests. I don’t think this logic should apply to ISPs, frankly the entire internet is far too large of a place to be monitored by any one company for copyright infringement, and I’d rather ISPs be nationalized and treated as public utilities than try to fit them into the same legal framework as social media companies.
That being said, even if the courts decide they should be forced into that same legal framework, ISPs could easily satisfy their legal obligations by simply blocking access to copyrighted content via their DNS service (which can easily be worked around by using an alternative DNS). There’s no legal reason why ISPs would be expected to block individual users from their network, and even if there were, ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to exist anyway, the state (and therefore the people) paid the lion’s-share of the cost to lay all that fiber-optic and copper cable across the country, so the state should own that infrastructure and operate it in the interest of the people (Internet access would be considered a human right and publicly owned ISPs would only have prices high enough to break even, not generate a profit).
So what entity has more pull with the Supreme Court? The MPAA or ISPs? I’m not so sure the answer is clear 😂
People need to come into contact with the Internet that isn’t based on streaming asap. We need laws worldwide that prevent blocking access to knowledge - the most basic and guaranteed by constitutions worldwide right. Books, music, films and games. People should have at least some access to them. I can’t imagine a world where I’m licensed to my books by Amazon. It’s just awful. Something needs to be brought together before publishers make this a crime.
If someone is using municipal water in their meth lab, the whole city block shouldn’t have their water shut off
If internet companies want to make an argument like that, then internet should be treated as a utility.
If internet companies want to make an argument like that, theninternet should be treated as a utility.
I heard this meth is transported over the interstate, so we should block that as well.
If someone is using meth in prison, the whole prison should be shut down.
