"Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement," judges rule.
One thing that leaps out at me about this ruling is that courts understand the internet a lot better nowadays. A decade or so ago Sony would have probably gotten away with the argument that Cox profited from the users’ piracy; nowadays judges themselves use the internet and are going to go “lolno, they probably would have been Cox customers anyway. It’s not like anyone pays for internet connection solely to pirate. And in most areas people don’t even have a choice of provider, so how is Cox profiting from this?”
Sorry couldn’t resist. Ripping is a term from CD/DVD days. You’d “rip” the contents off, i.e. make a digital backup. Now it’s applied to making backups of streams as well. Obviously the contents of these discs and streams are your property or otherwise legally obtained materials and are not being duplicated, sold, or in any way distributed to others if the content does not belong to you.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rip?
You know! Like a bong!
Sorry couldn’t resist. Ripping is a term from CD/DVD days. You’d “rip” the contents off, i.e. make a digital backup. Now it’s applied to making backups of streams as well. Obviously the contents of these discs and streams are your property or otherwise legally obtained materials and are not being duplicated, sold, or in any way distributed to others if the content does not belong to you.