ISP's Landmark Piracy Liability Case Doesn't Get a Do-Over in Appeals Court | Hacker News Reader

ISP's Landmark Piracy Liability Case Doesn't Get a Do-Over in Appeals Court

torrentfreak.com

54 pointsleotravis108 comments

Gotta love the little game record labels are playing where they can't sue individual pirates because if they did that with any regularity they would find themselves on the losing end of copyright reform so they're trying to deputize ISPs to quietly deal with the pirates for them and extract the damages from deep pockets.

I get that it's hard to compete with free but when the list of people guilty of piracy could be used as a census substitute talking about it as a crime stops really making sense. Laws are about capturing societal norms and we've demonstrated for going on 30 years that no one really cares.

I've noticed a lot of college aged kids in particular becoming much more anti-piracy. About textbooks even. I've heard reports of people being kicked off of private discord servers for sharing a link to the course textbook.

Somehow the PR campaign has gained some traction. I hope it's not a foothold.

That's news to me. I work in tertiary education and the kids coming through now are less tech literate but generally appreciate piracy for everything from visual media to educational material, largly because cost of living has risen, financial support for students has decreased, and income has stagnated or decreased meaning if previous generations were unwilling those now are flat unable to pay for things.

What I have noticed is younger folks tend to be smarter about knowing what to say, when and in what context, in a post privacy world.

I hope this gets some visibility and impetus to actually classify broadband as a utility.

Good thing I just renewed my VPN. Also as a random side note USENET is pretty good still.

The article is a bit light on these details; did Sony, Universal, et. al. show any proof of these damages or was it the usual conjecture of "if they bought instead of pirated, we'd have made more money"?

The damage should be considered more dubious if they can't show that someone pirated instead of buying.

32 pages of legal details to induce solid sleep: https://torrentfreak.com/images/cox-opinion.pdf

"We affirm the jury’s finding of willful contributory infringement. But we reverse the vicarious liability verdict and remand for a new trial on damages because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability."

when law people get to pronounce in IT cases, it's always 50/50. 50% money 50% superstitions/beliefs. However in US it's really dangerous because of precedent law

Reply on news.ycombinator.com