3 ms·
I agree with you that 10 years is more than enough time for corporations to turn a healthy profit on something (not that they can't continue to make money off o
by autoexec 7mo ago
I agree with you that 10 years is more than enough time for corporations to turn a healthy profit on something (not that they can't continue to make money off of a work after it has entered the public domain), but this wasn't a small victory.
If every ISP were at risk of being on the hook for endless billions in damages because of what their users did it would mean that ISPs would be forced to give in to the RIAA/MPAs demands to permanently terminate the accounts of internet users over completely unproven (and often inaccurate) accusations of piracy. It's worth noting that cox was actually already doing this in a limited number of circumstances, and the media industry still wasn't satisfied.
The media industry insisted that they needed the power to get people's accounts terminated even though it would have left many people, including fully innocent ones, cut off from the internet entirely. This was a big deal, and I'm honestly surprised to see this supreme court do the right thing.
- chii 7mo ago> ISPs would be forced to give in to the RIAA/MPAs demands to permanently terminate the accounts of internet users over completely unproven (and often inaccurate) accusations of piracy. and this is already true today, except instead of being ISPs, it's youtube and other user generated content platforms.
- autoexec 7mo agoYoutube was strong armed into agreeing to that by the RIAA to an extent. They could absolutely do better though by including human oversight and/or including it earlier in the process. Google has enough money that they can easily afford to pay workers to do the job and not screw over their users through their broken copyright system, but they choose not to.