I swore we resolved this decades ago
This sounds like 1998.
Complete with an Epstein Frequent Flyer in the White House.
It is like the alternate reality 1998 that sucks a lot more than 1998 did.
But payment processor is liable for payments for illicit goods. How does this logic work?
This is like the only good news I’ve heard of the Supreme Court in a long time. I’m sure I’ve missed some other good news, but I tried to tune out of a lot of politics recently because it makes me want to kill myself.
And before you give me shit for tuning out, I still vote, so fuck off.
I legit thought it was the onion at first
I have it in good authority that the bank robber filed the scene via the highway road system. Therefore, we are suing the road maintenance workers for failing to screen vehicles for bags full of stolen cash.
Good. This shit doesn’t make sense in the first place. Is the fucking highway liable when criminals use it to get to a victim?
The lawsuit wasn’t about the ISP being liable for all piracy, but for them to be liable if they don’t take action against customers who are known pirates.
So it would be like holding the highway patrol liable if they kept letting guys with multiple DUI convictions off with a warning when they blow above the legal limit.
This comment isn’t in favor of anti-piracy policies or anything, it’s just clarifying what the case was about.
I don’t know that I agree with this analogy either. Since Highway patrol’s job is to stop drunk drivers. But an ISP just maintains the “road” and makes sure that it is available as much as possible.
Yeah, it definitely wasn’t the best one I could have come up with. I’m on day 2 of trying to workout before work and my brain is mush.
But it’s a more nuanced case than the media companies suing ISPs because customers have torrented.
And I totally agree with the SC on this one. I think a court order should be required before an ISP can terminate service based on suspected piracy.
Although the bitter security analyst in me thinks that you probably shouldn’t be using the internet if you didn’t figure out how to not get caught after the first time.
It’s more like suing construction crews for not personally taking the car of everyone with a speeding ticket.
It depends. Is the high way also black?
…so…um…about that…
Y’all have black highways? Mine are all white full of cracks.
Aaaand I’m permabanned from a few Lemmy communities now.
Only from the bad ones, I’m sure ;-)
It sounds like copyright holder reps were going after ISP’s because they had money and were a large target.
Going after individual copyright violators will be difficult because there’s a lot more of them. It will also be difficult because copyright violators had no money.
It’s almost like the industry needs to re-think how they make income if the music itself can be copied at effectively no cost.
A lot of artists have figured this out already by touring a lot more and putting their music on Bandcamp for cheap distribution. Another option is getting paid for live performances. Sadly the music distribution gatekeepers might need to find new jobs since competing with Bandcamp while maintaining their lifestyle is going to be difficult.
They were going after ISPs who didn’t take action against customers who the media companies reported for piracy.
It adds up to the same thing, though.
Bands themselves make very little off of sales. That mostly gets eaten up by managers, distributors, and labels. The bands make a lot more money from touring unless they own their own label.
Not anymore, LiveNation eats up most of it
No, they screw the fans, not the artists.
That’s why I pirate music and buy concert tickets. I just wish someone would take Ticketmaster out back and double tap them.
Wait…good news? In this reality?
Yeah and it would be a great precedent - if we could trust SCOTUS AT ALL to rule consistently.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
No, you woke up today in bizarro world. Welcome.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
I had to pinch myself just to be sure I wasn’t dreaming there.
Someone didn’t pay the bribe!
Good news tho.
The telecommunications lobby is significantly larger and more influential than the recording lobby.
Good to see my $90 a month for unlimited movies and music is finally paying off.
Do you spend $90 on streaming a month??? Or is this just your monthly internet, me matey?
That’s my fiber internet for 1g up/down.
Oh nice not bad
Is it though? Doesn’t this mean they’ll go back to going after individuals?
If the onus was on the provider then they would have to respect and to takedown requests from rights holders with little to no oversight.
See Italy’s “piracy shield” for more info.
That’s a good point, they’d resort to a shoot first, ask questions later strategy to avoid being held liable.
X argued that if content creators are permitted to sue AI platforms when people use their technology to violate copyright law, the tech companies would “have no choice but to constrain their actions” to avoid the potential liability.
Would’ve been nice to have a win for the average person that didn’t also vicariously benefit AI companies, but that won’t be today.
Reading through the opinion, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this ruling come up in defense of chatbots trained on copyrighted works.
A provider induces infringement if it actively encourages infringement through specific acts. Grokster, 545 U. S., at 942 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). For example, in Grokster, we held that a jury could find two file-sharing software com- panies liable for inducement. Id., at 941 (majority opinion). The companies promoted and marketed their software as a tool to infringe copyrights. Id., at 926. The “principal ob- ject” of their business models “was use of their software to download copyrighted works.”“Sure, it can rip off copyrighted works, but your honor, we pinky promise that was never our principal object”. I could see it flying. Interestingly enough, the US Solicitor General explicitly brought up DMCA safe harbor in its amicus brief (siding with Cox):
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (17 U.S.C. 512), gave service providers, including ISPs, a safe-harbor defense to claims of copyright infringement. That defense shields ISPs from liability for copyright infringement based on, among other things, “the provider’s transmit- ting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. 512(a). To qual- ify for that safe harbor, the service provider must “adopt[] and reasonably implement[] * * * a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circum- stances of subscribers * * * who are repeat infringers.”I’d expect this admin to brief the court in a way that favors Musk et al, and it kind of makes sense that you’d want to bolster safe harbor protections, but I imagine a safe harbor defense of LLMs would require the reasonable policy of not training your LLM on a bunch of copyrighted works without their permission, with the express intent of creating derivative works on demand for your paying clients.
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
US SG amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-171/359730/20250527172556075_Cox-Sony.CVSG.pdf
Nirvana_-_Come_as_you_are.mp3.exe
- may contain weatherbug.exe virus
Or Bonzai Buddy!
Don’t worry, Nava Shield will protect your computer from these nasty viruses!
“Threat detected” -click ‘Allow’
