ISPs Tell Supreme Court They Don't Want To Disconnect Users Accused of Piracy (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0175078685
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/09/19/1811237/isps-tell-supreme-court-they-dont-want-to-disconnect-users-accused-of-piracy
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/isps-tell-supreme-court-they-dont-want-to-disconnect-users-accused-of-piracy/
> Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs [2]shouldn't be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks. While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy "would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access."
>
> The legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet," they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday. The amici curiae brief was filed by Altice USA (operator of the Optimum brand), Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon. The brief supports cable firm Cox Communications' attempt to overturn its loss in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. Cox petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case last month.
>
> Sony and other music copyright holders sued Cox in 2018, claiming it didn't adequately fight piracy on its network and failed to terminate repeat infringers. A US District Court jury in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in December 2019 that Cox [3]must pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels. Cox [4]won a partial victory when the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion verdict, finding that Cox wasn't guilty of vicarious infringement because it did not profit directly from infringement committed by users of its cable broadband network. But the appeals court affirmed the jury's finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Joe_Dragon
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/isps-tell-supreme-court-they-dont-want-to-disconnect-users-accused-of-piracy/
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/19/12/20/1646223/cox-owes-1-billion-to-record-labels-for-harboring-music-pirates-jury-decides
[4] https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/02/20/1635234/cox-communications-wins-order-overturning-1-billion-us-copyright-verdict
Captain Obvious says (Score:2)
Accusations != Convictions
Nor is it the job of an ISP to police the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Cox is not Sony's personal army.
On the other hand, if they expect private individuals or companies to be cops, I'm going to want a machine gun.
ISPs should not be fully responsible (Score:3)
If an ISP is a pit of criminal activity, it should be subject to heavy police presence. Just like a 'bad neighbourhood' IRL will tend to have more cops in patrol cars.
But asking ISPs to ban copyright infringers is just an attempt to circumvent the legal system. Let the rights holders report their issues to the appropriate authorities and wait out the investigations that may follow if the evidence is sufficient.
Vigilante justice (Score:2)
Who could have guessed demanding corporations assume the role of judge, jury and proverbial executioner was a bad idea?
Innocent until proven guilty (Score:2)
What next, accused shoplifters go directly to jail, no right to a trial?
Internet access is required in the modern world and there is often only one viable choice. Accusations of "piracy" have been known to be mistaken.
It isn't an ISPs job to police piracy any more than it is Ma Bell's job to listen in and cut off phone service to anyone who might be planning to rob a bank.
If someone steals some CDs and makes a getaway in the old Chevy, GM, AAA, the tire place, and Jiffy Lube are not contributory offenders.
For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:3)
Expecting ISPs to play piracy cop is insane.