Supreme Court rules ISPs aren't liable for user piracy without intent (www.techspot.com)

submitted 1 month ago by cm0002@europe.pub to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] leoj@piefed.social 41 points 1 month ago

I think this is good, right? Feels like the first time the supreme court has done something I agree with in a while...

[-] cm0002@europe.pub 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's very good, but it's also one of those things where they did the right things (essentially preventing forcing an ISP to be a enforcer of sorts) for the wrong reasons (Cox had more money)

[-] Wizard3964@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago

ISP has more money than music industry

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago

Yes

[-] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago

wth does "without intent" mean? Like, ooops my AI accidentally 1.41 TB of books and movies?

[-] cm0002@europe.pub 23 points 1 month ago

Intent meaning they're not an ISP that caters to piracy

E.g. you start an ISP called Pirate Connections, advertise that you cater to piracy and have specific piracy friendly features (optimized for torrents, gang planks, minimal logging etc) is bad

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026

84 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

69233 readers

194 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

We heartily recommend visiting the free port of freemediaheckyeah (aka FMHY) while you sail the high seas, for all the freshest links the ocean has to offer.