3 ms·

9-0 against the record labels. This effectively ends a long running strategy of trying to milk ISPs for people torrenting without a VPN. At the same time it lik

by ls612 7mo ago

9-0 against the record labels. This effectively ends a long running strategy of trying to milk ISPs for people torrenting without a VPN. At the same time it likely puts things like the *Arr stack at more risk given their more tailored nature.

pfdietz 7mo ago
And a slapdown to the lower courts being reversed.
tbrownaw 7mo ago
> At the same time it likely puts things like the *Arr stack at more risk given their more tailored nature. Well, those would be in the same position now that they previously were I think.
akersten 7mo ago
> 9-0 against the record labels. Love to see it. I'm still mad about the Sony rootkit[0] and the people sued for absurd amounts over downloading a few MP3s back in the 00's. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- tracker1 7mo ago
  I still haven't bought a Sony labelled product since... though I may or may not have consumed Sony content. They've definitely lost more than they gained.
  - dylan604 7mo ago
    > They've definitely lost more than they gained. That's a pretty good sized ego you got yourself there. The number of people that cared about the rootkit in the general populace was insignificant to Sony. Only tech nerds like us even knew about the rootkit or how insane it was to use. Unless you were a huge flagship purchaser of Sony's latest/greatest each year, they don't even notice you when you buy a TV or any other item. People barely remember the studio getting hacked and releasing a film
    - tracker1 7mo ago
      > Lost more than they gained (from me, implied). Maybe, just maybe assume the best in people instead of jumping to the worst interpretations you can.
      - dylan604 7mo ago
        Not sure how interpreted what I said as anything other than the implied you. No matter how much money you did or no longer do spend with Sony is not anything they'd notice. The caveat being you were a flagship purchaser from them which I doubt was the case.
        tracker1 7mo ago
        You assumed it was a point of ego, even said as much. I don't have to buy shit from Sony if I don't want to, and you can't make me. They definitely lost more on potential hardware sales the past few decades than I would have spent on content... even if it's not enough for them to notice.
    - ndriscoll 7mo ago
      They faced multiple lawsuits and had to do product recalls, so clearly they lost something. What exactly did they gain? IIRC you could avoid it by just turning off autoplay in Windows (which any sane person already did, or you could hold shift I think), and they were otherwise valid audio CDs (otherwise they wouldn't work in players), so it did exactly nothing to stop the CDs from being ripped and shared. And back then everyone knew about p2p so it really only took one person ripping it for it to spread. So even ignoring the lawsuits, even one person boycotting them probably makes it a net loss. Actually the development costs probably made it a loss.
  - azalemeth 7mo ago
    I too have never bought anything from Sony since then. Or any DRM at all, in fact.
- m-s-y 7mo ago
  I still boycott Sony over this. Made me a PC gamer, too.
- qingcharles 7mo ago
  Ironically Sony wanted those artists online for streaming, and in those days the only way labels had to transport the music to distribution services was sending the CDs. So the CDs landed on my desk because they'd been rejected by the data ingestion teams. I had some more[0] stern words with a very apologetic man from Sony that day. [0] they were constantly sending CDs that were fucked-up in totally new ways every time
oneneptune 7mo ago
A personal anecdote: I had several roommates, and we each were responsible for a utility. I was responsible for internet, and Cox was our provider. I received multiple e-mails from Cox about copyright infringement. I can't recall them, but I remember it being serious enough for me to tell people to stop. Thinking back, I feel like Cox's position is right and fair; let users know they're being observed by copyright holders, and inform the user that they could be compelled to provide their identity to complainants. But ultimately, the responsibility to "stop" the supposed infringement is on the holder, not Cox.
autoexec 7mo ago
The media industry has already decided that it should be allowed to turn copyright enforcement into a revenue stream and I doubt they're going to stop their extortion racket now. This ruling could mean that they'll increase their efforts targeting individuals with threatening letters demanding that they admit wrongdoing and settle for a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars at a time or else get sued in court and be forced to pay a lawyer tens of thousands to defend their innocence. It could mean they actually take more individuals to court instead of dropping the case every time they threaten somebody with enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them at trial. The media industry is also pushing for more control in other ways as well like blank media style taxes which would let them rake in a steady stream of cash without needing to make make specific accusations. They also still want to be able to force ISPs to instantly blacklist any IPs they accuse of streaming copyrighted content. They've got this power in many countries already and innocent users have already been screwed over by it. They may decide to focus their efforts on getting this pushed through in the US now. I doubt this ruling will lead to the kinds of broad copyright reforms we need, but it's long past time the courts started pushing back on the insane power grabs of the RIAA/MPA. No other industry could get away with demanding what they have.
saaaaaam 7mo ago
What does *Arr stack mean, please?
- a_vanderbilt 7mo ago
  Sonarr et al.
  - saaaaaam 7mo ago
    Ah, interesting. This is not something I’m at all familiar with. Lots to read!
AbanoubRodolf 7mo ago
[flagged]

by ls612 7mo ago

pfdietz 7mo ago

And a slapdown to the lower courts being reversed.

tbrownaw 7mo ago

> At the same time it likely puts things like the *Arr stack at more risk given their more tailored nature. Well, those would be in the same position now that they previously were I think.

akersten 7mo ago

> 9-0 against the record labels. Love to see it. I'm still mad about the Sony rootkit[0] and the people sued for absurd amounts over downloading a few MP3s back in the 00's. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

tracker1 7mo ago
I still haven't bought a Sony labelled product since... though I may or may not have consumed Sony content. They've definitely lost more than they gained.
- dylan604 7mo ago
  > They've definitely lost more than they gained. That's a pretty good sized ego you got yourself there. The number of people that cared about the rootkit in the general populace was insignificant to Sony. Only tech nerds like us even knew about the rootkit or how insane it was to use. Unless you were a huge flagship purchaser of Sony's latest/greatest each year, they don't even notice you when you buy a TV or any other item. People barely remember the studio getting hacked and releasing a film
  - tracker1 7mo ago
    > Lost more than they gained (from me, implied). Maybe, just maybe assume the best in people instead of jumping to the worst interpretations you can.
    - dylan604 7mo ago
      Not sure how interpreted what I said as anything other than the implied you. No matter how much money you did or no longer do spend with Sony is not anything they'd notice. The caveat being you were a flagship purchaser from them which I doubt was the case.
      - tracker1 7mo ago
        You assumed it was a point of ego, even said as much. I don't have to buy shit from Sony if I don't want to, and you can't make me. They definitely lost more on potential hardware sales the past few decades than I would have spent on content... even if it's not enough for them to notice.
  - ndriscoll 7mo ago
    They faced multiple lawsuits and had to do product recalls, so clearly they lost something. What exactly did they gain? IIRC you could avoid it by just turning off autoplay in Windows (which any sane person already did, or you could hold shift I think), and they were otherwise valid audio CDs (otherwise they wouldn't work in players), so it did exactly nothing to stop the CDs from being ripped and shared. And back then everyone knew about p2p so it really only took one person ripping it for it to spread. So even ignoring the lawsuits, even one person boycotting them probably makes it a net loss. Actually the development costs probably made it a loss.
- azalemeth 7mo ago
  I too have never bought anything from Sony since then. Or any DRM at all, in fact.
m-s-y 7mo ago
I still boycott Sony over this. Made me a PC gamer, too.
qingcharles 7mo ago
Ironically Sony wanted those artists online for streaming, and in those days the only way labels had to transport the music to distribution services was sending the CDs. So the CDs landed on my desk because they'd been rejected by the data ingestion teams. I had some more[0] stern words with a very apologetic man from Sony that day. [0] they were constantly sending CDs that were fucked-up in totally new ways every time

oneneptune 7mo ago

A personal anecdote: I had several roommates, and we each were responsible for a utility. I was responsible for internet, and Cox was our provider. I received multiple e-mails from Cox about copyright infringement. I can't recall them, but I remember it being serious enough for me to tell people to stop. Thinking back, I feel like Cox's position is right and fair; let users know they're being observed by copyright holders, and inform the user that they could be compelled to provide their identity to complainants. But ultimately, the responsibility to "stop" the supposed infringement is on the holder, not Cox.

autoexec 7mo ago

The media industry has already decided that it should be allowed to turn copyright enforcement into a revenue stream and I doubt they're going to stop their extortion racket now. This ruling could mean that they'll increase their efforts targeting individuals with threatening letters demanding that they admit wrongdoing and settle for a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars at a time or else get sued in court and be forced to pay a lawyer tens of thousands to defend their innocence. It could mean they actually take more individuals to court instead of dropping the case every time they threaten somebody with enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them at trial. The media industry is also pushing for more control in other ways as well like blank media style taxes which would let them rake in a steady stream of cash without needing to make make specific accusations. They also still want to be able to force ISPs to instantly blacklist any IPs they accuse of streaming copyrighted content. They've got this power in many countries already and innocent users have already been screwed over by it. They may decide to focus their efforts on getting this pushed through in the US now. I doubt this ruling will lead to the kinds of broad copyright reforms we need, but it's long past time the courts started pushing back on the insane power grabs of the RIAA/MPA. No other industry could get away with demanding what they have.

saaaaaam 7mo ago

What does *Arr stack mean, please?

a_vanderbilt 7mo ago
Sonarr et al.
- saaaaaam 7mo ago
  Ah, interesting. This is not something I’m at all familiar with. Lots to read!

AbanoubRodolf 7mo ago

[flagged]