205
submitted 7 months ago by Cuscuz@lemmy.world to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lemmchen@feddit.de 28 points 7 months ago

Can someone TL;DR the actual "worse" thing?

[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 37 points 7 months ago

They will skip the notice via proxy (your ISP passing a notice to you without identifying you to the claimant) and go straight to court to have the ISP forced to provide the ID of the subscriber for a specific IP observed to be active torrenting copyrighted materials.

Then they'll attempt to recover those court costs from that subscriber as well as sue them for the original copyright infringement.

I think they'll have quite an uphill battle with that approach, particularly when trying to prove the subscriber to an internet connection is also responsible for, let alone aware of, the alleged infringement. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have bothered with notices to begin with.

[-] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 35 points 7 months ago

Yeah this happened during the Napster era and it was so incredibly unpopular and unsympathetic with the general public that it didn't continue after a while. Suing a single mom on food stamps for thousands of dollars because her teenage son downloaded a game one time is a truly abominable look for a company.

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
205 points (93.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

52547 readers
481 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


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS