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@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!