Remix clone Hacker News

So what would that mean in practice? ISP's would buy into some stupid "great firewall" thing built by, say, McKinsey, that works in the most obvious cases, so they can claim "they're doing their part"?

▲

trod1234 12 hours ago | parent [-]

ISPs would be required to disconnect people who are found to be connected to various torrent sites under the claim that they pirate, then it expands to perfectly legitimate sites, and then the internet becomes useless, and violence breaks out.

The simple claim and bureaucratic framework similar to DMCA would largely bypass the courts and deprive people of their paid services, as well as access needed for various societal tasks (i.e. passports, mail issues, taxes, etc) first without due process. Basically the same as getting an injunction without having to see a judge or provide adequate proof.

In other words the RIAA and their friends, under color of law may become its own kangaroo court or something along those lines.

	▲	7e 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I heard this one before when the DMCA was enacted. End of the world, blah blah. Turns out, it was bunch of tech. activist pearl clutching/lies which never came to pass. Now I don't believe any of you neckbeards.

▲

hitpointdrew 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, ISP’s are common carriers. You don’t go after the telephone company because someone coordinated a murder over the phone line. Why the hell would an ISP have any responsibility of what their users do?

	▲	trod1234 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree though not for the same reasons. Copyright law lacks the authority to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Those rights would inevitably be violated as many bureaucratic functions of government require internet access, and not responding is not an option. It would also act to weaken the courts by setting the stage for further devolution of "rule of law" to "rule by law".

▲

factotvm 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only if gun manufacturers are liable for murders.

▲

beej71 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sony Music has zero reason to guard against false positives if they win this. Innocent people are going to have their service canceled.

What are the odds this SCOTUS makes the right decision?

▲

bediger4000 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Making ISPs liable for users' piracy is transparently transferring the costs of policing "Intellectual Property" to ISPs, and at the same time, making it easy for "Intellectual Property" owners to sue for damages - an ISP has a fixed address, legal counsel, and deeper pockets than most teenagers.

▲

bhaney 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

End users should be liable, and ISPs should not be required to give user information to claimed copyright holders or forward notices.

Find my address and serve me yourselves you money grubbing internet vigilantes. Good luck.

▲

josefritzishere 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is just bad law. It opens up culpability in all manner of supply lines. Are water companies required to detect and report leaks? No, that responsibility falls to the consumer. The water company does profit, (as does Cox but not disproportionately) yet the water company still has no responsibility to detect or report leaks.

▲

14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

lawls 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Supreme Court is full of fascists. Who gives a shit what they think.

▲

bhaney 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> Who gives a shit what they think

Presumably, the hundreds of millions of people who are required to follow the laws they interpret under threat of imprisonment.

	▲	ghssds 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Under the threat of death. While death isn't officially a legal punishment for copyright infringement, you typically don't need to resist the law for very long before it become a choice between bending the knee and facing death. In practice, every law is under the threat of death.