Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy (nytimes.com) 32
The Supreme Court appears inclined to side with Cox Communications in a major copyright case, suggesting that ISPs shouldn't be held liable for users' music piracy based solely on "mere knowledge," given the risk of forcing outages for universities, hospitals, and other large customers. The New York Times reports: Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyonce sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music. At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages -- a billion dollars or more -- if they know that customers are pirating the music but do not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access.
Justices from across the ideological spectrum on Monday raised concerns about whether finding for the music industry could result in internet providers being forced to cut off access to large account holders such as hospitals and universities because of the illegal acts of individual users. "What is the university supposed to do in your view?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, suggesting it would be difficult to track down bad actors without the risk of losing service campuswide. "I just don't see how it's workable at all."
"The internet is so amorphous," added Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, saying that a single "customer" could represent tens of thousands of users, particularly in rural areas where an entire region might be considered a "customer." After nearly two hours of argument, a majority of justices seemed likely to side with Cox and to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review under a stricter standard. Several justices suggested the company's "mere knowledge" of the illegal downloads was not sufficient to hold Cox liable.
Justices from across the ideological spectrum on Monday raised concerns about whether finding for the music industry could result in internet providers being forced to cut off access to large account holders such as hospitals and universities because of the illegal acts of individual users. "What is the university supposed to do in your view?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, suggesting it would be difficult to track down bad actors without the risk of losing service campuswide. "I just don't see how it's workable at all."
"The internet is so amorphous," added Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, saying that a single "customer" could represent tens of thousands of users, particularly in rural areas where an entire region might be considered a "customer." After nearly two hours of argument, a majority of justices seemed likely to side with Cox and to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review under a stricter standard. Several justices suggested the company's "mere knowledge" of the illegal downloads was not sufficient to hold Cox liable.
They're gonna make NAT illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that'd be one way to increase IPv6 adoption!
Re: (Score:2)
That's always been a curiosity to me - why haven't the big industries pushed for IPv6 adoption? I mean they lost their cases because of NAT hiding families or more behind a single IP address (mobile users are hidden behind CGNAT).
You would think they would push for the rapid adoption of a technology that would let them individually identify a device which would let them for the most part identify a single user. (Sure some people still have shared computers -
Re: (Score:2)
That's always been a curiosity to me - why haven't the big industries pushed for IPv6 adoption?
In the overall scheme of things the entertainment industry is not that big, and approximately nobody else will appreciate being rushed.
Re: (Score:3)
That's always been a curiosity to me - why haven't the big industries pushed for IPv6 adoption? I mean they lost their cases because of NAT hiding families or more behind a single IP address (mobile users are hidden behind CGNAT).
You would think they would push for the rapid adoption of a technology that would let them individually identify a device which would let them for the most part identify a single user.
There is no effective difference between IPv4 NAT and IPv6.
With IPv4 CGNAT ISPs do port range mapping and store the map with subscribers session history allowing disambiguation of multiple customers behind the same IP.
IPv4 NATs run by subscribers is effectively no different from IPv6 privacy addresses. Yes they get globally unique addresses however these are constantly changing. There is no way to link them back to a specific users or machine within the network after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy extensions. Either you make the person with the contract responsible, or you're out of luck. The is true for NAT with a single IP just as for IPv6 PE with random IPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To say nothing of VPNs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Knowledge? (Score:1)
I envisage a world without the music industry.
I'm going to generalise and say that any concentration of control is automatically bad - humanity excels at finding creative solutions because of individual differences. Once differences are legislated away, something is lost - just look at the effect of government.
There's no need for the music industry - recording, distribution, promotion are all within the reach of individuals as are voice coaches, tour organisation, etc
Now they're no longer needed they've met
Botnets (Score:3)
The labels didn't think this through (Score:5, Informative)
IPv4 and NAT make it very difficult to nail particular users with the kind of speed. When law enforcement sends search warrants to an ISP, it can take weeks or months for the ISP to find time to dig through their logs and find the exact customer. I think federal law also requires a certain amount of money to exchange hands to cover the burden to a business having to execute a search warrant on behalf of law enforcement in cases like that where both the cops and business need to ensure a limited, scope search and seizure.
The RIAA's argument is "we're so important, we can give you a list of a few MP3s and an IPv4 address and tell you to sort it out or we'll sue." It doesn't take a genius to realize that the SCOTUS is likely to turn a baleful eye toward an argument that amounts to "we can trash due process because we're a business."
I'd wager the RIAA has a higher chance of a 9-0 "GTFO" ruling than a mixed bag.
the proof of the files being copyrighted or even r (Score:1)
the proof of the files being copyrighted or even right IP's it not good and may not hold up in a court room.
Re:The labels didn't think this through (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the SCOTUS is likely to turn a baleful eye toward an argument that amounts to "we can trash due process because we're a business."
On the other hand I wouldn't have thought being brown and speaking Spanish were probable cause for someone being a criminal but here we are.
BAD LAWYERS. (Score:2)
IPv4 is old. Force IPv6 and legally ban NAT which facilitates the ability to block and censor as far as the ISP is concerned. People will have to learn how to circumvent that but no longer an ISP problem unless they don't ban IPs or MAC.
SCOTUS doesn't care much about due process... it's more a process of finding out what amount is due to them $$$
Re: (Score:2)
When law enforcement sends search warrants to an ISP, it can take weeks or months for the ISP to find time to dig through their logs and find the exact customer.
First time I had to do something like this I learned how to do it. Second time I was paying attention to what might change. Third time I wrote a script. Subsequent times were just running and maintaining said script. I may or may not have let management know I had a script.
That said, the labels can pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the SCOTUS is likely to turn a baleful eye toward an argument that amounts to "we can trash due process because we're a business."
I thought that was the court's position on everything. The problem here is that the argument is "you should trash due process for other businesses to benefit us." This isn't about the interests of internet users, its about conflicting business interests. If the only people inconvenienced were users, the court would have no problem trashing due process to protect a business interest.
This is still a thing? (Score:2)
I'll be honest, I'm kinda surprised this is still a thing. It's not 2001 anymore, Napster isn't really around anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be honest, I'm kinda surprised this is still a thing. It's not 2001 anymore, Napster isn't really around anymore.
Is what still a thing?
Napster is just a fond memory, but now I can torrent whole albums at 24/192 in seconds on my gigabit connection (though I actually only get a couple hundred Mb/s through my VPN service). I can usually find copies of the movies I download at 2160p. Yeah, it's a thing alright.
Re: (Score:2)
Movies make sense, but this is the Music Association.
I guess I find it odd that people are downloading full albums with enough frequency for this to be a large enough issue for the music association to still be barking in the courts about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised someone with this take thinks they're informed enough to talk on this subject so that's both of us!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A good point, but I still wonder; is this prevalent enough to warrant such legal action? Just how many people are "pirating" music today?
Cox paid up (Score:2, Troll)
It was a simple matter of Cox buying Thomas a 2026 Winnebago.
ISPs can't be held liable (Score:1)
They might as well also hold liable the OEMs who made the computer parts you used, the company that provided you electricity to power the computer, the communications company who installed the infrastructure you used, DARPA for creating the network you used to do it, the developers who made your OS and browser, etc. These are all incidental. It doesn't make any sense.
It's the person who committed the act who should be held liable only.
The solution is easy (Score:1)
If Cox didn't monitor what their customers are doing, they wouldn't know and couldn't be held responsible.
music labels need to stop shotgunning a list at an (Score:2)
music labels need to stop shotgunning a list at an ISP and at least get an court order or do some leg work.
After that the ISP needs to allowed to do at least some basic checks of that data to see if there is any errors that make that IP at that time an bad report.
\o/ (Score:1)
How about the judge shuts down the record labels?
How much longer are they going to monetise and police a form of expression as old as humanity as if they invented it?
How much longer are they going to prey on young women to ensure overt sexuality is a prerequisite for a chance of a music career?
Insert your gripe below...