Supreme Court is going to uphold it, watch. The Supreme Court isn’t really a viable source of decision making when it comes to these things.
"The major record labels, including Sony and Universal, want the Supreme Court to take a closer look at the “profit motive”. They asked the Court to consider whether an ISP must profit directly from the infringement itself, or if profiting from the overall operation in which the infringement occurs is enough. "
This is really just straight up bullying. Because, Sony and Universal for years have targeted pirates who they know are pirating and knew of the sources. They know the difference, it’s just they want more people to do their dirty work for them.
To support this argument, the music companies cited the dance hall cases, in which courts have held that the owners of venues can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by performers they hire.
The petition further cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Herbert v. Shanley Co. that a hotel could be held liable for the infringing performance of an orchestra it employed. The Court concluded that the hotel profited from the performance, even though visitors only paid for their meal, not the music.
Fucking dumb logic.
"“That would imperil the livelihoods, safety, and social connections of a massive universe of downstream users who rely on internet connections to run businesses, pay bills, apply to jobs, read the news, connect with friends and family, petition their representatives, and attend school.” "
True. But “muh muneh” are all that these studios care about.
If they were regulated as a common carrier, wouldn’t this be a non issue for them? Shame they fought that so hard, it seems like it would have saved them some money.
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.
Owners want other owners to protect their property “rights”
Beautiful to see them fight each other but remember, we are paying for both of these parasites to exist 🤡
Supreme Court is going to uphold it, watch. The Supreme Court isn’t really a viable source of decision making when it comes to these things.
"The major record labels, including Sony and Universal, want the Supreme Court to take a closer look at the “profit motive”. They asked the Court to consider whether an ISP must profit directly from the infringement itself, or if profiting from the overall operation in which the infringement occurs is enough. "
This is really just straight up bullying. Because, Sony and Universal for years have targeted pirates who they know are pirating and knew of the sources. They know the difference, it’s just they want more people to do their dirty work for them.
To support this argument, the music companies cited the dance hall cases, in which courts have held that the owners of venues can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by performers they hire.
The petition further cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Herbert v. Shanley Co. that a hotel could be held liable for the infringing performance of an orchestra it employed. The Court concluded that the hotel profited from the performance, even though visitors only paid for their meal, not the music.
Fucking dumb logic.
"“That would imperil the livelihoods, safety, and social connections of a massive universe of downstream users who rely on internet connections to run businesses, pay bills, apply to jobs, read the news, connect with friends and family, petition their representatives, and attend school.” "
True. But “muh muneh” are all that these studios care about.
Dance halls and hotels don’t have “safe harbor” provisions as a matter of law, and their services to performers are not deemed a “human right”.
Yes, but have you seen some of the decisions the Supreme Court has come up with?
All those examples have the company (the ISP in this case) choosing to hire someone, this would be more similar to:
If someone rents a hotel room, and then gets busted by the police for prostitution, is the hotel liable?
If they were regulated as a common carrier, wouldn’t this be a non issue for them? Shame they fought that so hard, it seems like it would have saved them some money.