When thousands of people illegally download books, music, or films, and their internet service provider knows about it but keeps collecting monthly fees from the pirates anyway, should the company face consequences? That’s the question at the heart of Cox […]
ISPs route data packets between IP addresses; they don’t get to see the content of what I send/receive (it’s encrypted), and they don’t get domain info without deep packet inspection, because I don’t use their DNS servers.
It’s more like sometimes the city will put up speed cameras and ALPRs — but does that make them responsible for speeders?
You have a point about the DMCA though; I’ve had videos monetized by a third party because of music I wrote and performed myself — turned out, the company was stealing MY music and I got dinged for it.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s a good argument. OP just grossly mischaracterized it.
The main issue with this is that it would either
A. Be massively open to abuse in the same way that YouTube is now, but would come with greater penalties in that you can lose Internet access. Or
B. Force your ISP to do a copyright analysis every time they receive a report.
Every illegally downloaded book is a lost sale
This is straight out of 2007. What an awful position to take.
And that’s fucking wild about someone fighting you over your own music. The DMCA is a fucking joke.
You can’t get more legal than obtaining content directly from the rights holder. It’s more likely that the rights holder is leeching and recording the IP of the seeders.
So, the one with the right to share the thing, is sharing it themselves.
I’d say that makes it the correct source to download.
Even better than the DRM’d sources that says you only have limited access.
I’m guessing it wouldn’t be a valid legal argument, but I liked the thought experiment of claiming that it can’t be piracy if the rights holder is intentionally publicly sharing the content. Like trying to charge trick-or-treaters for theft when they took candy out of the bowl you left out with a “Free!” sign attached.
There’s no such thing as entrapment in the world of copyright, unfortunately.
That said, something kinda similar did happen in the Viacom v. YouTube case. It’s been over a decade since I read it so forgive me, but I think YouTube discovered that Viacom themselves had been uploading bits of The Simpsons, and I believe sometimes processing them to look like amateur clips because they believed that the exposure helped them in the long run.
usually, they don’t actively seed, they are just part of the swarm, and request content from you. And if that content is part of e.g.their movie, they get you for distributing the movie.
ISPs route data packets between IP addresses; they don’t get to see the content of what I send/receive (it’s encrypted), and they don’t get domain info without deep packet inspection, because I don’t use their DNS servers.
It’s more like sometimes the city will put up speed cameras and ALPRs — but does that make them responsible for speeders?
You have a point about the DMCA though; I’ve had videos monetized by a third party because of music I wrote and performed myself — turned out, the company was stealing MY music and I got dinged for it.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s a good argument. OP just grossly mischaracterized it.
The main issue with this is that it would either A. Be massively open to abuse in the same way that YouTube is now, but would come with greater penalties in that you can lose Internet access. Or B. Force your ISP to do a copyright analysis every time they receive a report.
This is straight out of 2007. What an awful position to take.
And that’s fucking wild about someone fighting you over your own music. The DMCA is a fucking joke.
Then how do they know what movie I’m torrenting if my VPN is not on?
The rights holder is seeding and records your IP address, then sends a C&D to your ISP, who then notify you about it.
You can’t get more legal than obtaining content directly from the rights holder. It’s more likely that the rights holder is leeching and recording the IP of the seeders.
So, the one with the right to share the thing, is sharing it themselves.
I’d say that makes it the correct source to download. Even better than the DRM’d sources that says you only have limited access.
I’m guessing it wouldn’t be a valid legal argument, but I liked the thought experiment of claiming that it can’t be piracy if the rights holder is intentionally publicly sharing the content. Like trying to charge trick-or-treaters for theft when they took candy out of the bowl you left out with a “Free!” sign attached.
There’s no such thing as entrapment in the world of copyright, unfortunately.
That said, something kinda similar did happen in the Viacom v. YouTube case. It’s been over a decade since I read it so forgive me, but I think YouTube discovered that Viacom themselves had been uploading bits of The Simpsons, and I believe sometimes processing them to look like amateur clips because they believed that the exposure helped them in the long run.
usually, they don’t actively seed, they are just part of the swarm, and request content from you. And if that content is part of e.g.their movie, they get you for distributing the movie.