Copyright holders hire services that use bots to monitor file-sharing networks and send ISPs millions of notices a year alleging infringement by someone at a particular IP address, Cox told the Supreme Court. Cox said that ISPs “have no way of verifying whether a bot-generated notice is accurate” and that even if the notices are accurate, terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person may have illegally downloaded copyrighted files.
Accused? Not convicted but accused?!
This Supreme Court may just love that!
If there is one thing the Conservative Majority SCOTUS likes is a to “answer” a question no one is asking.
Citizens United was based off an FEC decision about the Michael Moore, a commercial film maker, the docudrama Farenheite 9/11 which was critical of the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 territorist attacks. The Complaint was the film was political advertisement 60 days before a general election. The FEC decided the film could be aired before the 2004 election as it didn’t support one candidate and only referenced how it was handled not current commentary In advertisements, and therefore was not not a political advertisement for a single candidate.
In response, Citizens United produced a “documentary” Celcius 41.11" which was critical of the Farenheite 9/11 and John Kerry’s actual policies. The FEC ruled this was clearly was a political advertisement put out by not a bona fide commercial film studio, and therefore could no be aired 60 days out from a general election.
What was argued to SCOTUS: Celcius 41.11 should be legal bc we did like Farenheite 9/11 and do not like John Kerry’s 2004 presidential policies
What SCOTUS ruled: Coperations could spend unlimited funds to be critical of an individual’s policies just so long as there was no coordination between the corporation and the candidate that said that the corporation supports
Even if you were convicted of it that doesn’t seem like a suitable punishment. What if you didn’t even use the Internet to copy whatever it was? If I used a VCR to copy a video would I be banned from VCRs?
Why does the copyright owner get to dictate the punishment? When someone steals from a regular person the judge doesn’t ask the person what the punishment should be.
So… Meta?
So does that just mean I can claim that I’m an AI company and need to download all this copyright material for my “start up?”
It means if you accuse an AI company if piracy the ISP will have to disconnect them.
We going to shut down Sony for pirating Adobe software and other companies?
So what’s going to happen is there will be a group that will exploit all the horribly insecure home routers out there with active CVEs that will never get patched. They will then use systems within those networks to do the torrenting, and then securely copy them away.
Then a ton of people will be accused of piracy just by their IPs and get disconnected.
I’m sure it’ll be fine…
So if the Supreme Court allows this I can just accuse record labels of copyright infringement to have their Internet cut off?
