• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    27410 days ago

    Based on that logic, ammunition and arms manufacturers should be held liable for damages as well.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16310 days ago

      Yes, but that would mean that logic has any bearing on what the Supreme Court decides to do

    • masterofn001
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2210 days ago

      More like, if you steal something you are banned from using roads and sidewalks and doors.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Yeah, sure but to “steal something” is to imply that you’re depriving the original owner use of the thing you stole. This is more like making an exact copy depriving nobody of use of the original thing.

        it’s more like depriving someone use of roads, sidewalks, and doors because they got caught walking out of Kinkos

      • Yggstyle
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        Gonna be a lot of issues that come from this. Legally speaking. It’s already on the books that an IP address doesn’t represent a single person… so I’m not terribly clear on how they plan to enforce this even if it were to pass.

        • projectmoon
          link
          fedilink
          17 days ago

          You assume precedent, consistency, or ethics matter to the current people in power in the US.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3410 days ago

      The US has a law to limit the liability of gun manufacturers.

      The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.

      • Luffy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1510 days ago

        Because of fucking course there is

        Were talking about Jesusland after all

  • DFX4509B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    154
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    If it’s upheld, that’s the precursor to full-blown info blackouts, just cut off internet to anyone ‘accused’ of wrongspeak against the powers that be, which is basically everyone.

    This also sounds like SOPA reborn.

      • DFX4509B
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Given the US is ran by the New Fuhrer? I could see this being used against criticism of leadership or anything else resembling free will and not just piracy. I also find it sad that the day the US will probably die as a free country and turn into a dictatorship, is the same day it gained its independence in the first place.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        Their uncivilized censorship regime vs. our civilized online child protection and anti-terror laws.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 days ago

          So you bought into the think of the children argument?
          You know that’s a red-herring, right? It’s really about eroding privacy.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 days ago

            It was supposed to be a reference to a meme making fun of “us vs. them” mentalities. I know enough about the think of the children argument.

  • The Picard Maneuver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22310 days ago

    I’m not a judge, but isn’t internet essentially a utility these days? Cutting someone off because of piracy seems like cutting off electricity or water because they did something illegal with it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        Net neutrality is why your online jokes were censored under Biden

        – John McRacist, Republican congressman, former CFO of Evil Inc., former lawyer of Vile Ltd., member of Christofascism Society and Roman Salutes to Jesus

    • flandish
      link
      fedilink
      English
      239 days ago

      accused piracy, too. Not proven. Not convicted. Just “pirate go bye bye.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1810 days ago

      I’m some places in the States they will cut off your electricity or water for sharing with a neighbor that has had theirs shut off. I have seen both happen personally, and not in some back water state. They both happened in upstate NY.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1110 days ago

        Cut off for sharing, or cut off for running illegal/unsafe/unlicensed wiring and plumbing connections?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6210 days ago

      Pragmatically, yes. Legally, no. Progressives have been fighting for years to get internet classified as a utility in the US, and regressives and (ironically) internet companies have been fighting against that effort at every turn in the name of profit.

      And now look how well that’s turned out. Gee, if only some people had warned them that deregulation was a monkey’s paw…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9410 days ago

      I’m pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don’t have a right to electricity, or even water. They’ll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Besides your point but this is the aspect about Gorsuch that I can’t seem to make internally consistent. He almost always rules in terms of native rights – even when, I think, it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle – yet is more than happy to rule as a conservative on all other times and support “industry” and big business (even when it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle).

          I know that nothing necessitates a person to act logically and most act from emotion, more than anything, but most people, I find, have a relative reason they think they’re being logically consistent but I can’t seem to suss even that out, with regards to him.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 days ago

          to be fair the treaty never specified anything about water, and the Navajo nations should have had better lawyers or better guerilla warfare tactics if they wanted more negotiating power.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1610 days ago

      I’m not a United Statesian so I have no clue anymore how it works there, but other places have been making the case that the Internet is an essential service and that access to it is a basic right. So to leapfrog off your question, is that like a poor person stealing a loaf of bread being cut off from food because they didn’t food responsibly enough?

      • Sigilos
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3010 days ago

        Unfortunately the country I was born in, the USA, is also one that voted against the international resolution to define food as a human right. 😕

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2810 days ago

      Inb4 palantir cuts off your electric and water because you had 15% eye distraction during the mandatory 3hr nightly fox news viewing.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10910 days ago

    Being accused of will lose you access to basic infrastructure? Why not cut electricity too?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2910 days ago

    lol, they’ll have no customers! ISPs used to send ‘warning’ letters to customers in England but that’s all.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      179 days ago

      Same in the US.

      I got one once from something I know for sure I didn’t download. I always assumed it was a friend of mine staying with us that was torrenting “Boss’s Daughter Big Booty XXX” or whatever it was, but I never really wanted to ask.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    810 days ago

    Like 20 years ago the RAVE Act said venues can be charged if anyone is in possession of illegal drugs inside of them during an event. Similar in some ways

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2110 days ago

    4G piracy hub go brrrrr? Go ahead, disconnect me. I will get another SIM and resume piracy.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    269 days ago

    Lol.

    Do ISPs like making money?

    Then they shouldn’t disconnect users who pirate.

    I get notifications from my ISP all the time. They don’t do anything though because they like the money I give them.

    • bthest
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I’ve been torrenting movies and software since 2000, no vpn, like I literally have torrented damn near everything I’ve watched for decades and have only gotten a notice once and it wasn’t even me. It was from a temporary roommate who had watched a movie on a pirate streaming site.

      So that tells you how good and accurate their detection techniques are.

      • Robust Mirror
        link
        fedilink
        English
        89 days ago

        Their methods are fine, they literally just pirate the stuff themselves, see which IPs connect to them, then connect those to an ISP and notify them. The main reasons you wouldn’t get notices are getting lucky, not seeding much, not torrenting things that are being monitored, or having an ISP that doesn’t care much.

        The single notice from the streaming site makes sense, pirate streaming sites are usually honeypots or heavily monitored.

        • bthest
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          My routine is always use piratebay, never use a pirate streaming site, no new or big studio releases, no porn, not seeding for long and choosing less active torrents. I can’t say much for how effective it is since I’ve never gotten hit so I can’t really experiment (I’ve had five or six ISPs in two different countries).

          they literally just pirate the stuff themselves, see which IPs connect to them, then connect those to an ISP and notify them.

          And I don’t even understand how this would hold up if it ever went to trial. How can an IP owner “pirate” their own IP? Even when they outsource it to services who do this they’re still giving permission for the IP to be distributed.

          It’s like hiring someone to “steal” your own TV, putting it in a back alley and then accusing whoever takes it of being a thief.

          • Robust Mirror
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            It’s generally seen as okay on a similar level to undercover work. They do it for Investigation reasons, the torrent was already uploaded before they joined, their monitoring serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and they’re authorized by the copyright holder (themselves) to do it. They didn’t put the movie or whatever out there themselves.

    • AlphaOmega
      link
      fedilink
      English
      69 days ago

      After switching to torbrowser for all my questionable searches and downloads, I no longer get notices from my ISP for like 10 years now

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5610 days ago

    And now I’m on a VPN because if they’re just gonna cut people off for accusing of piracy they’re gonna have to cut off everyone with a VPN.

    TBH I should have been behind a VPN before

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1910 days ago

        I love Mullvad and used them for years, but without port forwarding, they’re not the service you want for torrenting. Some alternatives like AirVPN or ProtonVPN are better suited for that stuff.

        Before the haters jump in and tell me “it works fine fer me!” it’s only working because the user on the other end, like myself, have port forwarding set up. Since you don’t have it, you’ll never connect to anyone else like yourself nor will they be able to connect to you.

        Of course there are alternatives like streaming and Usenet but there are tradeoffs no matter what you pick.

        • katy ✨
          link
          fedilink
          English
          510 days ago

          i just use mullvad on my router and port forward directly there

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            79 days ago

            And how do users connect to your port if your VPN-WAN doesnt have a port forward?
            Same problem at a different point in the connection.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            That still won’t work. Either the forwarded port is getting blocked by Mullvad (which is bad) or you’re bypassing Mullvad to use the forwarded port (which is really bad). You’ve essentially roped yourself into a double-NAT situation, where your router has a forwarded port but the router behind yours (the VPN server, which you have no control over) doesn’t.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          I don’t think your explanation of why it seems to work is correct.

          I seems to work (works in a limited way, even), because any remote machines that your bittorrent client connected to during downloading are temporarilly recorded on the Mullvad router on the other side of your VPN doing NAT translation as associated with your machine, so when those remote machines connect to that router to reach your machine, it knows from that recorded association that those connections should be forwarded to your machine.

          This is quite independent of people on the other side using port-forwarding or not.

          Port-forwarding on the other hand is a static association between a port in that router and your machine, so that anything hitting that specific port of the router gets forwarded the port in your machine you specified (hence the name “port” “forwarding”). With port-forwarding there is no need for there having been an earlier connection from your machine to that remote machine to allow “call back”.

          This is why at the end of downloading a torrent behind a Mullvad VPN will keep on uploading but if one restarts a torrent which was stopped hours or days ago (i.e. purelly seeds), it never uploads anything to anybody - in the first case that NAT translation router associated all machines your client connected to during download to your machine, so when they connect back to download stuff from you it correctly forwards those connections to your machine, but in the second case it’s just getting connections from unknown remote machines hitting one of its ports and in the absence of a “port-forwarding” static rule or a record of your machine having connected to those remote machines, it doesn’t know which of the machines behind it is the one that should receive those connection so nothing gets forwarded.

          So it’s perfectly possible to share back when behind a Mullvad VPN but you have to leave the torrent client keep on seeding immediatly after downloading and it will only ever upload to machines which were in the swarm when the client was downloading (they need not have been clients it downloaded from, merelly clients it connected to, for example to check their availability of blocks to download, which give how bittorrent works normally means pretty much the whole swarm)

          It is however not at all possible to just start seeding a torrent previously downloaded unless the download wasn’t that long ago (how long is “too long” depends on how long the NAT Translation Router of Mullvad keeps those recorded associations I mentioned above, since those things are temporary and get automatically cleaned if not used),

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 days ago

            Ok so now I’m confused entirely. Does that mean leeching I don’t need to do a port forward, but seeding I do?

            Which means if I want to leech to get the file then seed when I’m not heavily using my network I’m sort of out of luck?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              59 days ago

              If you’re purelly seeding (as in starting to seed a torrent from scratch never having downloaded it from the bittorrent client you’re using or having done it a long time ago - days, weeks or longer), without port-forwarding it will simply not work and nobody can connect to your machine and downloade anything for that torrent because all those remote machines that are trying to connect to your client have no association with your machine on the Mullvad Router doing NAT translation.

              If you’re downloading a torrent and then leave it seeding for a while after the download phase is over, then it will usually work fine because the Mullvad Router doing NAT Translation still remembers the various remote machines that your machine connected to in the swarm for that torrent during the download stage, hence when those remote machines connect back trying to themselves download stuff from yours, it will know that’s related your machine and thus accept those remote connection and forward them to your machine.

              In practice this means that it if you leave your torrents seeding AFTER DOWNLOADING is over, usually (but not always as for torrents with very few peers the swarm is either too small or changes too fast) you can upload more than you downloaded, hence you’re not leeching.

              So if you use Mullvad and don’t want to be a leecher, always leave your torrents active and uploading after you’ve downloaded them.

              Personally I have mine set to 1.5 upload to download ratio and only seldom does it fail to reach it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 days ago

      I recommend AirVPN. Never had a problem w/ them & doesn’t require a special VPN client.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        I think the point is that they can’t easilly track back to a specific client of a specific ISP instances of unlicensed downloading of copyrighted materials if they’re done behind a VPN.

        Mind you, they can still easilly track it back to the VPN, so make sure you’re using a provider that puts privacy above all an is not based in countries like the US or UK.

        That said, if they just throw an unsupported accusation at you and the ISP cuts you out, using a VPN or not makes no difference.

  • mesa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    609 days ago

    This is how you get a new darknet.

    • Joe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      129 days ago

      In Germany and no doubt some other countries, private law firms can (on behalf of the copyright holders) request people’s identity based on residential IP addresses and then send extortionist legal threats. Apparently an IP appearing on a public tracker can be enough to trigger it, without any confirmed data transfer.

      VPNs are common and usually sufficient.

      • Kairos
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        Don’t public trackers add random IPs?

        • Joe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          49 days ago

          They could. The protocol also supports IP spoofing, so doxing could also be a thing.

          For individuals, it is a time consuming and costly legal process, whether justified or not. For the law firm, it costs a few cents per letter, but they get a few hundred (or more) euros when some sucker pays.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 days ago

        they try that in the US, using mass litigation, but it doesnt work, its usually designed to scare indivudal IP users to “turn them self in”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7610 days ago

    So if Meta is convicted of pirating books for AI training, they lose all internet connectivity? 🧐

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3510 days ago

    In the beginning we used to exchange cassettes. You would have a boombox with two cassettes. You would play one while you recorded on the other. Then you gave the cassette back to your friend. Next was the VCR with the big ass cassettes.

    Then you would do the same with floppies, then zip disks. Then one day CD recording was a thing, then DVDs. Then thumb drives and now portable HDDs. Basically the cheapest form or recording is always the most popular way for people to share stuff.

    The only ones who don’t want us to share are those who want to make millions by never innovating.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 days ago

      I couldn’t afford one of those fancy 2-cassette boomboxes, so I had my friend bring his tape deck and we put them real close together in the quietest room of the house and recorded that way. Having several siblings meant that there were no quiet places, so we used the empty garage when my parents were at work. The audio was autrocious, tons of echo and static, but I played that tape thin until it snapped.