"Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement," judges rule.

“Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement,” judges rule.

But still declared them liable for the actions of their users.

Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.

Bizarre ruling that’s for sure.

In my head, either they are liable and need to pay up (not in my opinion but that would make much more sense) or they are not and need to pay nothing.

This shit is weird. It’s like accusing someone of helping steal your smartphone and then wanting them buy a pack of Oreos to make it even.

d00phy
link
fedilink
English
57M

Next up: Cox bans torrenting traffic and known VPN IP ranges.

What a bizarre stock photo choice too! Someone had a lot of fun with that 😄

For real. Are they trying to make me NOT want to be that guy, cause…

Batman
link
fedilink
English
47M

Welcome to the Yee Side!.. ARRRRGG!

kindenough
link
fedilink
137M

Access to internet is a basic human right. Sony doesn’t honor basic human rights when it wants people kicked off internet because money.

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Create a post
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don’t request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don’t request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don’t submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others


Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


  • 1 user online
  • 219 users / day
  • 509 users / week
  • 927 users / month
  • 4.94K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.2K Posts
  • 78.4K Comments
  • Modlog