3 ms·

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

by achandlerwhite 6mo ago

joering2 6mo ago
[flagged]
- dionian 6mo ago
  it would help if all cases of self defense were cataloged. Right now it only hits the stats if a crime is not averted.
- vetrom 6mo ago
  > where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.
  - creantum 6mo ago
    Guns stolen = crime. Guns purchased = self defense.
- JCTheDenthog 6mo ago
  Even the lowest estimates (the National Crime Victimization Survey) estimates annual defensive gun uses in the US at 60-80k per year. Highest estimates are at around 2 million. But even then, most usage is at ranges, and far outstrips crime usage.
  - joering2 6mo ago
    I don't think it matters in the light of this ruling. Cox could have argued that 99.9% of their data packets are Netflix and downloads of free Linux ISOs, yet neither court nor the ruling cares.
- ApolloFortyNine 6mo ago
  There are around ~500 millions guns in the US according to a quick Google. There's a lot of crime in the US, but I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Also you can buy a gun and just shoot it at a range.
  - shevy-java 6mo ago
    > I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.
    - freedomben 6mo ago
      Just curious, do you feel the same way about knife manufacturers? Or automotive makers?
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
    - burningChrome 6mo ago
      >> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense? Its like saying car manufacturers should be responsible for drunk drivers who kill others in collisions. Because they should've known their cars would be used by someone to do something dangerous and against the law?
      - MSFT_Edging 6mo ago
        The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists. There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting. Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen. Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these guns. Without a large amount of guns in circulation, there would not be a similarly large amount of illegal guns in circulation, as they almost all came from a factory somewhere. I like guns but I am so tired of people acting like the 2nd amendment insists it's their right to treat firearms like goddamn funkopops. In states with legal marijuana, we set limits on the number of plants one can keep on their property, yet there is no limit to how many firearms one can poorly store for a slightly competent criminal to come collect under their nose. No liability for poorly storing them either unless it's in the immediate vicinity of a toddler.
- clickety_clack 6mo ago
  Statistically speaking, most guns are not used for crime, and even among uses, crime is probably small compared to military or even hunting etc.
- Tuna-Fish 6mo ago
  That's not at all what this ruling says? To win, Cox did not need to prove that they sold their product without intent to infringe. To win, the plaintiff would have had to prove that Cox had intent. The difference in burden of proof is in practice massive.
- kube-system 6mo ago
  Because intent isn't something that you can acquire from the actions of third parties Second, the VAST majority of guns in the US sit in gun safes and closets and never shoot anyone. Finally, shooting someone is not necessarily an illegal action -- gun manufacturers market their products for self defense or sporting reasons -- I have never seen one market their products for use in criminal acts.
  - joering2 6mo ago
    Well, I have never seen Cox advertising their internet cable as a way to download pirated movies, but here we are.
    - kube-system 6mo ago
      Yes, exactly. As the ruling states: > Cox neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement; accordingly, Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- dwedge 6mo ago
  This is an instance of begging the question "if the overwhelming amount of used guns are used to accompany crime then how can you argue otherwise". But there's no substance to your premise. 400 million owned guns, 50,000 deaths a year, it's a long way from the overwhelming majority.
  - joering2 6mo ago
    Absolutely. I would also agree that 99% of data delivered by Cox is not pirated movies.
vetrom 6mo ago
There already is a specific law shielding gun manufacturers from liability from simple sales, which Democrat heavy states and locales do a lot of work to test the edges of and chip away at: the PLCAA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... which was passed in 2005 in light of mendacious lawsuits taking up a notable amount of courts' time.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
shevy-java 6mo ago
Yeah. The courts are inconsistent here. If they want to hold service providers responsible, they also must make arms producer responsible, and politicians too.
- MBCook 6mo ago
  Well this is a copyright case and guns aren’t. Couldn’t that be a big reason for the difference?
- stackskipton 6mo ago
  Courts are not inconsistent, they are following the law. Like most cases decided by SCOTUS, they are deciding on the rules set by Congress and courts have ruled time and time again, that Constitution gives Congress almost sole jurisdiction for determining how Copyright law functions. For copyright law, Congress does not expressly allow secondary liability for third parties FOR COPYRIGHT unless the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement. In this case, Cox was not cutting off copyright infringers BUT since their service could be used by same infringers for valid use, they didn't have to. For arms producer, Congress has exempted them for liability and courts have ruled, yep, Congress gets to make the rules here. Congress could overturn both rulings by changing the law. This is what we want. Congress makes the rules, courts interpret but don't make new rules.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

joering2 6mo ago

[flagged]

dionian 6mo ago
it would help if all cases of self defense were cataloged. Right now it only hits the stats if a crime is not averted.
vetrom 6mo ago
> where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.
- creantum 6mo ago
  Guns stolen = crime. Guns purchased = self defense.
JCTheDenthog 6mo ago
Even the lowest estimates (the National Crime Victimization Survey) estimates annual defensive gun uses in the US at 60-80k per year. Highest estimates are at around 2 million. But even then, most usage is at ranges, and far outstrips crime usage.
- joering2 6mo ago
  I don't think it matters in the light of this ruling. Cox could have argued that 99.9% of their data packets are Netflix and downloads of free Linux ISOs, yet neither court nor the ruling cares.
ApolloFortyNine 6mo ago
There are around ~500 millions guns in the US according to a quick Google. There's a lot of crime in the US, but I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Also you can buy a gun and just shoot it at a range.
- shevy-java 6mo ago
  > I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.
  - freedomben 6mo ago
    Just curious, do you feel the same way about knife manufacturers? Or automotive makers?
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - burningChrome 6mo ago
    >> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense? Its like saying car manufacturers should be responsible for drunk drivers who kill others in collisions. Because they should've known their cars would be used by someone to do something dangerous and against the law?
    - MSFT_Edging 6mo ago
      The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists. There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting. Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen. Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these guns. Without a large amount of guns in circulation, there would not be a similarly large amount of illegal guns in circulation, as they almost all came from a factory somewhere. I like guns but I am so tired of people acting like the 2nd amendment insists it's their right to treat firearms like goddamn funkopops. In states with legal marijuana, we set limits on the number of plants one can keep on their property, yet there is no limit to how many firearms one can poorly store for a slightly competent criminal to come collect under their nose. No liability for poorly storing them either unless it's in the immediate vicinity of a toddler.
clickety_clack 6mo ago
Statistically speaking, most guns are not used for crime, and even among uses, crime is probably small compared to military or even hunting etc.
Tuna-Fish 6mo ago
That's not at all what this ruling says? To win, Cox did not need to prove that they sold their product without intent to infringe. To win, the plaintiff would have had to prove that Cox had intent. The difference in burden of proof is in practice massive.
kube-system 6mo ago
Because intent isn't something that you can acquire from the actions of third parties Second, the VAST majority of guns in the US sit in gun safes and closets and never shoot anyone. Finally, shooting someone is not necessarily an illegal action -- gun manufacturers market their products for self defense or sporting reasons -- I have never seen one market their products for use in criminal acts.
- joering2 6mo ago
  Well, I have never seen Cox advertising their internet cable as a way to download pirated movies, but here we are.
  - kube-system 6mo ago
    Yes, exactly. As the ruling states: > Cox neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement; accordingly, Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
dwedge 6mo ago
This is an instance of begging the question "if the overwhelming amount of used guns are used to accompany crime then how can you argue otherwise". But there's no substance to your premise. 400 million owned guns, 50,000 deaths a year, it's a long way from the overwhelming majority.
- joering2 6mo ago
  Absolutely. I would also agree that 99% of data delivered by Cox is not pirated movies.

vetrom 6mo ago

There already is a specific law shielding gun manufacturers from liability from simple sales, which Democrat heavy states and locales do a lot of work to test the edges of and chip away at: the PLCAA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... which was passed in 2005 in light of mendacious lawsuits taking up a notable amount of courts' time.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

shevy-java 6mo ago

Yeah. The courts are inconsistent here. If they want to hold service providers responsible, they also must make arms producer responsible, and politicians too.

MBCook 6mo ago
Well this is a copyright case and guns aren’t. Couldn’t that be a big reason for the difference?
stackskipton 6mo ago
Courts are not inconsistent, they are following the law. Like most cases decided by SCOTUS, they are deciding on the rules set by Congress and courts have ruled time and time again, that Constitution gives Congress almost sole jurisdiction for determining how Copyright law functions. For copyright law, Congress does not expressly allow secondary liability for third parties FOR COPYRIGHT unless the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement. In this case, Cox was not cutting off copyright infringers BUT since their service could be used by same infringers for valid use, they didn't have to. For arms producer, Congress has exempted them for liability and courts have ruled, yep, Congress gets to make the rules here. Congress could overturn both rulings by changing the law. This is what we want. Congress makes the rules, courts interpret but don't make new rules.