this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
837 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59331 readers
4641 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The supremes: oh! Yes! We are on your side ISPs! The MPAA and RIAA will now be allowed to sue individual users directly bypassing courts.

Have fun! You got them boys! You got that 98 year old grandma! Get her house! And that minority girl trying to download the new Beyonce songs? Deathrow! 1 per song! All the single ladies our ass! You wouldn't download a car! We're the Supremes! Watch us! But first Trump is president starting now, and poor kids shall get no food in school! They wouldn't be poor if they got food! Oh and women....we did the abortion thing already darn!....no vote for women! Marriage age 6 now, overruling all states laws.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

Let's get you back to your room Mr. Thomas.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (16 children)

I never understand how this community relates to copyright. It's all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned. Then the most dogmatic copyright maximalists come out It's all anti-capitalist until AI is mentioned and then the most conservative, devout Ayn Rand followers show up.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Here's my guess. Piracy provides a competition against the horrible practices of streaming and entertainment companies that doesn't otherwise exist, forcing them to provide a better service.

Artists are just a single person making art and their service isn't gobbled up by the capitalist machine and turned into something user unfriendly. They don't usually make too much money, unlike huge entertainment corporations, either.

When it comes to piracy, individual content creators often don't care as long as they get money to live. There have been people who work on video games or movies who say they don't care if others pirate their work as long as others get to see it. But for AI, it copies and changes the work, stripping the art of its original watermark, and it sets itself up to be a replacement of the artist itself. It doesn't just spread their work without having you pay for it, it replaces the concept of needing an artist altogether, but only by using their labor in the first place without paying them for it.

If piracy let movie studios replace the idea of needing individual content creators, writers, artists actors, etc then people would feel differently I think. As it is now, people don't care about big studios, they care about the individual. Piracy currently only really harms the former and not the latter. AI is the opposite.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Everyone is different.

I personally think copyright and patent laws need to die. If you can't protect your own secrets, don't rely on taxpayer resources to do it for you.

White-collar workers were cool with machines and poorer nations taking blue-collar jobs. Now that it threatens them and their money, the hypocrisy is on full display.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Americans would not want the price of produce to get higher but a) it relies on employing undocumented labor and b) it's very hard to find American citizens these days willing to do that kind of hard physical work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

White-collar workers were cool with machines and poorer nations taking blue-collar jobs. Now that it threatens them and their money, the hypocrisy is on full display.

Heh. Yes. It's even beyond hypocrisy. Many will outright say that automation is supposed to churn over these "dirty, boring" jobs while making their own lives better. Even finding themselves on the receiving end of progress, they don't call for a better social safety net. No, they just want to get rent for their property. I wonder how much copyright industry has to do with the steady move to the economic right, through its huge influence on culture.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Personally I think AI training is free use. I also think AI is a fad and generally used as a way to scam people.

However, artists complain about AI because it pulls from their business (in theory.) Artists generally don’t complain about piracy by the end user because the artist is usually still credited in someway (signature watermark etc.) and piracy doesn’t generally stop other people from paying for their art. AI in theory steals their jobs.

The main people who complain about traditional piracy are the executives of companies that purchased copyright on artist’s works through contracts that do not favor the artists.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's almost as if the people here favor individual rights over corporate profits.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have a corporation that doesn't want to spend money to care for individual copyrights, or even lose customers over it. That describes ISPs. Still, people side with the corporation.

When you say individual rights, you, of course, mean copyrights; intellectual property rights. Giving property such a high priority is such a clash to the otherwise anti-capitalist attitudes here. It's not just pro capitalist. It's pro conservative capitalist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think anybody here is siding with ISPs. We're just happy to hear that they're having difficulties policing piracy.

When I say individual rights I mean any and all rights an individual has or should have. In the case of piracy, an individual should have a right to entertainment media at a reasonable cost. The more corporations increase the cost of media access, the more piracy proliferates. In the case of AI, an individual should have the right to earn a living. Corporations are using the works of individuals to ultimately increase their own profits without due compensation to the individual.

I don't know how you got to pro conservative capitalism from a single anti-corporatist statement, but it likely took you several leaps of logic that I'm not going to even try to follow.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 118 points 1 month ago (5 children)

If someone is using municipal water in their meth lab, the whole city block shouldn't have their water shut off

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 170 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The headline should read:

Despite best efforts and all odds, ISPs find themselves on the right side of history.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Only because it would hurt their bottom line.

Funny how we can only win when it's corporations fighting each other.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, totally, unbiased reporting to advocate for those poor vulnerable ISPs....

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

imagine getting banned from the one monopoly ISP available to you in your entire city. what do you do after that? sell your house?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I actually just use my phone for internet and haven't had a landline ISP for 2 years now.

Visible, $25/month has saved me so much money and they even sent me a free phone.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's insane that people (okay, mostly corporations) try to argue internet access is not a utility. What happens then? Does your home value decrease? Or does the next purchaser have to petition the ISP to convince them they are a different, non-infringing customer and hope they reverse the ban??

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

This happened in the apartment I just moved into. I had to call to verify my identity and they had to unblock something on their side due to the previous tenant ostensibly not paying.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm guessing it would be tied to your name. the new tenants would have service, but you might have to move to a different state or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 94 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why don't they start with OpenAI and other LLM vendors, because they are the biggest copyright infringement abusers of all time?

[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because they're also rich. Laws are for the poors.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

In Canada they absolutely are lol

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

Which is why the Supreme Court is hearing the case. Two wealthy industries fighting out who gets to extract the most wealth.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›