this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
159 points (97.6% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53838 readers
754 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
 

"Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement," judges rule.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What a bizarre stock photo choice too! Someone had a lot of fun with that 😄

[–] los_chill@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago

For real. Are they trying to make me NOT want to be that guy, cause...

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

But still declared them liable for the actions of their users.

Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Next up: Cox bans torrenting traffic and known VPN IP ranges.

Bizarre ruling that's for sure.

In my head, either they are liable and need to pay up (not in my opinion but that would make much more sense) or they are not and need to pay nothing.

This shit is weird. It's like accusing someone of helping steal your smartphone and then wanting them buy a pack of Oreos to make it even.

[–] kindenough@kbin.social 13 points 6 months ago

Access to internet is a basic human right. Sony doesn't honor basic human rights when it wants people kicked off internet because money.

[–] Cyberbatman@lemmings.world 4 points 6 months ago

Welcome to the Yee Side!.... ARRRRGG!