snownyte@kbin.social to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 months agoCourt blocks $1 billion copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users’ piracyarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up1157arrow-down12file-textcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldtechnology@lemmit.onlinepiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
arrow-up1155arrow-down1external-linkCourt blocks $1 billion copyright ruling that punished ISP for its users’ piracyarstechnica.comsnownyte@kbin.social to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 months agomessage-square7fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.worldtechnology@lemmit.onlinepiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
minus-squareconciselyverbose@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up15·9 months agoBut still declared them liable for the actions of their users. Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.
minus-squared00phy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·9 months agoNext up: Cox bans torrenting traffic and known VPN IP ranges.
minus-squarehoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·9 months agoBizarre ruling that’s for sure. In my head, either they are liable and need to pay up (not in my opinion but that would make much more sense) or they are not and need to pay nothing. This shit is weird. It’s like accusing someone of helping steal your smartphone and then wanting them buy a pack of Oreos to make it even.
But still declared them liable for the actions of their users.
Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.
Next up: Cox bans torrenting traffic and known VPN IP ranges.
Bizarre ruling that’s for sure.
In my head, either they are liable and need to pay up (not in my opinion but that would make much more sense) or they are not and need to pay nothing.
This shit is weird. It’s like accusing someone of helping steal your smartphone and then wanting them buy a pack of Oreos to make it even.