Scott
Steve HermanSCOTUS unanimously rules ISPs are not liable for copyright infringement if they fail to disconnect music pirates. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
Kevin Karhan 
@newsguyusa which does make sense just like any other utility company isn't responsible for their paid-for services being abused for illegal activities.
Ben Ramsey
Paul Chambers🚧@ramsey I think the argument was, once they media industry proves a connected user is an infringer, the ISPs become cohorts if they don't take action. They won a billion dollars up through the appeals process but now SCOTUS overturned all of that.
My post has the cover ruling . https://oldfriends.live/@paul/116290486627454288
@paul @ramsey @newsguyusa kinda like #OCILLA & #SafeHarbour regulations re: #Copyright|ed materials and #hosting only shield the provider from liability unless they knew about said acts…
- See #DMCA claims.
@ramsey I would imagine it will be broadly applied now. I think forums have already been protected from user activity. I think takedowns will still apply. @kkarhan @newsguyusa
@paul @kkarhan @newsguyusa That’s what I mean. We have a DMCA designated agent and an advertised DMCA takedown process, and if we receive a proper takedown notice but fail to address it, is that okay?
@ramsey Yeah.
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). Upon receipt of a complaint takedown notice, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity. If a service provider fails to do so, it may lose its safe harbor protection and be subject to an infringement suit.
It's also worth noting, unless a website registers a DMCA agent with the copyright office, one really isn't protected as people can claim they sent takedowns.
https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/
@kkarhan @newsguyusa
@paul @kkarhan @newsguyusa That’s why we’ve registered a designated agent, but with this ruling, I’m curious if that means we’re no longer liable if we fail to take action.
@ramsey @newsguyusa @paul OFC.
Or any other provider non-liability because it's neither possible nor intentional to review the entire chain of useage for everything.
- Regardless if drinking water, power, sewage, trash, heating or broadband.
- In the end only key individuals are liable!
Patch You Up@kkarhan @ramsey @newsguyusa @paul I have a bad feeling that there are nefarious reasons the court ruled this way. One would be to set a precedent that firearm companies cannot be held liable for actions taken by their customers.
@Jumpmed @ramsey @newsguyusa @paul they never should ne, just like a car manufacturer isn't made liable for the abuse of their product or a nation is made liable for the actions of a single tourist.
- Because otherwise one would make it basically illegal to do anything as any action one did would've made one indefinitely liable towards anyone.
- I mean, I don't get to sue #Trump for the #FuelPrice|s caused by his #CrimeOfAggression either, or get to claim #2A rights outside #US juristiction…
- Or any restaurant selling food would be made liable for any #customers' allergies if someone ordered food from them to be sent to another person.
Please #TouchGrass and realize that the problem are people and modalities, not the inanimate Objects they utilize!
- Sounds like shit, but is the #InconvenientTruth…
Paul Chambers🚧 (@[email protected])
@[email protected] Yeah. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). Upon receipt of a complaint takedown notice, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity. If a service provider fails to do so, it may lose its safe harbor protection and be subject to an infringement suit. It's also worth noting, unless a website registers a DMCA agent with the copyright office, one really isn't protected as people can claim they sent takedowns. https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/ @[email protected] @[email protected]
@kkarhan @ramsey @newsguyusa @paul Telling someone to touch grass after that reply is really a modern art masterpiece.
There are gun manufacturers that 1) make a product that is designed to kill, 2) make it easy to modify that product to be better at killing, 3) market that product in a way that glorifies violence, and 4) promote other products that enhance the lethality of their products. Those things are not comparable to what a car manufacturer or ISP does.
Hope this clarifies things for you!
There are gun manufacturers that 1) make a product that is designed to kill, 2) make it easy to modify that product to be better at killing, 3) market that product in a way that glorifies violence, and 4) promote other products that enhance the lethality of their products. Those things are not comparable to what a car manufacturer or ISP does.
Hope this clarifies things for you!
Miko Blissful [he/fae]@newsguyusa Finally, some fucking common sense! The role of an Internet Service Provider is not to be an aribiter of information, no matter the legality; the role of an ISP is to connect the user to the internet. IF the user commits crimes, then the USER should be the one facing justice, not the ISP that provided the connection to that user.
Then, and only then, the role of the ISP in the nature of the infringing user, is to give the information about the user's residence and last known connection (IP address), so that the user can be charged. In no way, shape or form, should the ISP have to carry the burden of a user, no matter the legality.
If an ISP has to do so, then the duty of the ISP has become moot.
Dan Morgan 
@newsguyusa @vmstan Whohoo! I got bits to torrent!