Music publishing companies notched another court victory against a broadband provider that refused to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. In a ruling on Wednesday, the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the big three record labels against Grande Communications, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband.

The appeals court ordered a new trial on damages because it said the $46.8 million award was too high, but affirmed the lower court’s finding that Grande is liable for contributory copyright infringement.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    232
    ·
    2 days ago

    Exactly what law states internet connections should be terminated for users accused of piracy?

    And are we going to selectively enforce this against poor people, or are they going to start demanding the trunk lines feeding AI datacenters be cut as well? (I asked rhetorically).

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      2 days ago

      Come on, you don’t think an industry that habitually uses automated takedown requests regardless of merit would falsely accuse anyone, do you?

    • DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      AI shouldn’t be allowed to touch the internet because it’s basically stealing everything and never giving references which is plagiarism.

    • Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      Might be a good idea to torrent whatever you need before the corpos manage to get some law passed that makes it so that isps will have to terminate users for that.

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Well the birds still have to link to the main network somewhere to exchange packets… which I assume would still be an ISP, unless all you want is local mesh networking.

              • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                It can cover a one-kilometer radius

                So most of the last mile.

                If we try to have cable or telcos do last-mile they’ll fuck us as hard as they possibly can, make laws guaranteeing themselves a permanent monopoly, etc.

                We need wireless as a backup just to keep those worthless fuckers honest, then we can do a hybrid model with some scattered fiber ONTs terminating into wifi nodes.

                What we really need is to string fiber on the power lines, but the telcos and comcast pay the power companies extra to stop that too.

                Break the monopoly power and this all comes tumbling down.

                • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  Someone will still have to install and maintain the wireless access points, physically link them to the local network trunk and negotiate for service with the backbone provider… which would just be an ISP, who would sell you access to the WiFi system like a cellular provider.

                  This isn’t a problem that can be solved with technology. Monopolies have to be fixed with government oversight.