"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?”
They have so far. It’s still legal to use a VPN without verifying my identity. It’s still legal, though difficult, to access the Internet anonymously. The local police department doesn’t blanket monitor everyone’s search history.
increasingly difficult tech solutions for privacy are a bandaid not a cure.
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.
Your so-called “rights” won’t hold to the pressure of massive media capital alone. It will erode away.
They have so far. It’s still legal to use a VPN without verifying my identity. It’s still legal, though difficult, to access the Internet anonymously. The local police department doesn’t blanket monitor everyone’s search history.
increasingly difficult tech solutions for privacy are a bandaid not a cure.