- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- legalnews
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- legalnews
Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn’t be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks.
While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy “would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access.” The legal question presented by the case “is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet,” they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday.
You must log in or # to comment.
I like the end result that ISPs are pushing back on this, but don’t mistake this for altruism on their part.
Their businesses make money selling internet service. Were they to support cutting off those accused of piracy, they would be losing paying customers. Further, the business processes and support needed for this to function would be massively expensive and complicated. They’d have to hired teams of people and write whole new software applications for maintaining databases of banned users, customer service staff to address and resolve disputes, and so much more.
Lastly, as soon as all of that process would be in place to ban users for piracy accusations, then the next requests would come in for ban criteria in a classic slippery slope:
- pornography
- discussions of drugs
- discussions of politics the party in power doesn’t like
- speaking out against the state
- communication about assembling
- discussion on how to emigrate
All the machinery would be in place once the very first ban is approved.
Plus, you aren’t disconnecting a person, but a whole family or business.
And since many areas in the US only have one provider, you force that family to cancel all streaming services they might have. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation.
I think a big problem we don’t want to address is now that we’re so interconnected, internet access is a necessity that should be classified as a utility. You can’t just cut off someone’s electricity without notification or process because they did something bad with it and it should apply here too
Absolutely
Not if they get their universal digital ID system in place. It is the wet dream of tyrants of all kinds.
Shared devices would still be a problem no?
Sharing? Communism. Straight to jail.
What. Is this something that’s been on the horizon?
I think it is also the user they disconnect for piracy tend to pay more. They tend to be more premium customers also why should they enforce what happens on their lines. It is an illegal search and seizure. Let the government get a warrant prove something is illegal then the ISP can disconnect them.
Yeah who else is going to pay for 1GB speeds knowing the most they’ll ever get is 400MB
I agree with all this, but I think it is all to say: ISPs support Net Neutrality when it behooves them.
Yeah but that’s capitalism in a nutshell, isn’t it?
Sony can’t have your electricity cut off if you pirate. Because electricity is a utility.
ISPs want it both ways. They want the legal protections of a utility without the obligations.
The solution is to give them the legal protection they want by declaring them a utility.
Those moments when you can’t decide if someone’s username means they’re a science nerd or a Venture Bros. fan.
Me_irl:
Who in their right Minds would want to be a nerd but not a venture brothers fan?
I’m not certain but there’s a high probability that that Venn diagram is just a circle
Go Team Venture!
It’s like the other side of the diagram has disappeared from the mateeeeeriiiiiaal plaaaaannneeeeee!
I wonder if would you get your electricity cut off if you plugged in a 750kW industrial oil drill in your backyard
The 200A main breaker on most homes would trip a little above 50kW. Could you even start up 1000hp without 3 phase?
I wanted to exaggerate for comedic purposes, I had 500MW written initially 😄
L’esprit de l’escalier, should’ve said 1.21 jiggawatt flux capacitor
The people who sell electricity are surprisingly happy to sell you electricity. If you happen to do something horribly wrong and don’t burn your house down, an electrician will be happy to do the repairs. If you have 200 Amp service and draw the full 200 all year long, the most significant reaction would probably be getting a personalized Christmas card.
The headline should read:
Despite best efforts and all odds, ISPs find themselves on the right side of history.
Only because it would hurt their bottom line.
Funny how we can only win when it’s corporations fighting each other.
I’m surprised ISPs haven’t found a way to start issuing fines and fees for alleged copyright violations.
Bottom line or not there are ways that ISP’s could mitigate the loss that would benefit their bottom like while hurting the consumer.
Example: 1000 users are now nor able to pay or use the internet because of Piracy. ISP says: oh we had 2000 users now we have 1000 easy we will just double the cost of internet on those 1000 users.
ISP’s are like any other company. Pointing it out doesn’t mean it is negative. They are a business ruin their business model and it impacts everyone. I am not saying you are wrong. I just think your comment tries to view this stance in a negative light in the context and something being a business with a bottom line doest not instantly make something negative or make something negative not worth fighting for.
Mitigating the loss isn’t the point.
Pirates account for some of the most significant internet users. Pirates generally buy higher tier plans, and actually use them. These are high value clients to the ISP.
Most households have maybe a handful of people, let’s say, 4 on average, where each can be doing around one thing on the internet at any given time. Some of the highest bandwidth activities that they can legally engage in, aside from bulk downloads (games, files, etc), is video streaming. Most 4K video services are streaming at around 25-40Mbps, across four people, that’s 100-160mbps. Accounting for overhead, most households don’t require more than 200mbps.
These are small fry users for the ISP, since presently 200mbps is very middle-of-the-road for available speeds in most places.
Pirates are usually in the 500+ Mbps plans whenever they’re made available, usually at a significant premium for the speed, and for the unlimited bandwidth that they need for their consumption. They’re the prosumers that see the value in the extra speed and cost… And there’s a LOT of them. Whether it’s casual piracy, like watching licensed content for free on some ad-riddled shady site from overseas, to full on data warehouse pirates who download terabytes of data every month… There’s a large number of users that pirate content of all sorts.
ISPs know this, they see the copyright claim notices, and they know how much of their userbase is going to vaporize if something like this passes.
You think it’s maybe half? That they should just increase pricing to make up for it? Yeah, they did the math, if that was the problem, they wouldn’t care, nor spend the money to fight it.
The fact that they’re fighting against this should be extremely telling that this kind of legislation would significantly impact the business. They would lose a huge portion of their clients. They would need to overhaul the business to stay afloat, if they can survive it at all.
You’re comment is reductive and short sighted. You don’t seem to realize what their actions actually mean, or at least, what they imply. ISPs are not fighting for us out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re not charities. They’re profit mongering business people who only care about the bottom line. So if they’re going to bat against the MPAA/RIAA for something that will benefit their clients who are doing things that are clearly illegal, what does that say about how this will affect their bottom line.
IMO, if this goes through, then we’re going to see more than a few ISPs go chapter 11.
Man most pirates use something like stremio or popcorn time off a home network, the real reason they need to fight this is were still on ipv4 - the amount of logistics they’d have to give a shit about just to address a device (then somehow beyond reasonable doubt attribute that device to a user) is prohibitively expensive
I get what you’re saying, and I think it’s more that the copyright folks want the ISPs to banhammer whole households when violations happen.
First, that’s going to punish a whole lot of people who have nothing to do with the piracy. Imagine having family over for a weekend, and their snot nosed tweenager brings their laptop, gets on your wifi and their torrent program fires up… Come Monday, after they’ve gone home, you try to sign in to your work at 9AM for your work from home job and you have no internet because of a copyright troll.
Second, they already know which subscriber it is. I dunno if you’ve downloaded a
carmovie illegitimately ever, but the ISP spams your inbox with notifications about “cease and decist” bullshit about it. Usually this goes to the ISP provided mailbox which nobody uses, so a lot of people don’t realize it’s happening, nor care, but they’re already legally required to forward that shit on to you. They know who is doing it. They send those messages and I’m sure have systems that tally up how many of their subscribers get them and at what frequency they are recieved.Third, ISPs are not the police. They’re literally the messenger that carries your traffic to and from the rest of the internet. They just want to happily continue doing that for the ludicrous amounts of money they’re paid to do it.
ISPs are already bearing the cost of upgrading all their stuff to support the ever growing sets of standards they have to meet to continue being an ISP, set forth by the FCC and other regulatory bodies that they previously stole millions of dollars from promising to upgrade their networks to fiber, then paid themselves insane amounts instead… They want to afford their next yacht and live life in luxury, not be the security guards for some copyright troll with a grudge.
Not to mention “ISP” is an incredibly broad term. You can consider international transit providers as ISPs. If they’re headquartered in the USA, they have to abide by the rules too. That means the “ISP” for the dedicated server farm for your local online delivery place could be shut down, because someone logged into one of their “cloud” desktops to watch finding Nemo on popcorn time, causing the datacenter ISP to cancel their internet. Poof. No more delivery because Jim doesn’t know how to hit “sign out” before setting up his work laptop to be a babysitter for his kids.
The implications of this are huge.
I haven’t read the text and maybe there’s exceptions for service networks and connections. Maybe it’s only targeting residential connections. IDK. But from what I’ve heard so far, that’s not the case. Given that this is patent trolls and government representatives writing this garbage, I doubt they know enough to exclude those groups.
If I’m right on that, and I hope to all fuck that I’m not, and they didn’t exclude service/business networks, then this legislation will be the single most disruptive thing that happens to the internet.
Services like Dropbox and other “cloud” storage systems will jump up and down, going offline regularly because people want to share x movie with so-n-so, and don’t know how, so they dump it wholesale into Dropbox, getting their internet service cancelled.
Even if I’m wrong, and it’s only targeting residential subscribers, it’s still a massive pain point. Work from home will be difficult at best, and most people won’t have internet service regularly. Given that the internet is presently regarded as more important than the fucking telephone, which the government annexed as an essential service when it was the only “fast” method of communication, and we’ve since dogpiled most of what was considered an essential service into the internet (like telephone calls), this really really can’t, and shouldn’t happen.
To continue my analogy to telephones, this is very similar to having your phone line cut because you played a copyrighted song for a friend over the line. Now you can’t call 911. Get fucked. In an era when telephone is the only game in town (before the internet), that would have been completely unacceptable. You got cut off because you called your friend to play him the new hit “enjoy the silence” by Depeche mode over the phone (in 1990), and now you can’t call 911 to get an ambulance for your visiting elderly relative who just had a heart attack, and they die.
gg copyright trolls, you sure “won”.
No. Fuck that. The internet is a critical communications network, not something you get grounded from because time/Warner/Disney (?) got angry about your use of it. Fuck them. Fuck this shit. Fuck the government for even considering it. Fuck everyone who supports this garbage. Access to the internet should be immutable. You can’t cancel someone’s connection because you take issue with how they live their life.
I understand what the copyright holders are doing and it makes me sick. They want to take away your internet because you didn’t pay full fucking price for some bullshit they’re peddling. You’re a source of entertainment at most, stay in your goddamned lane fuckers. You’ll take the exorbitant amounts of money the majority of people are willing to pay for your shit stain of a streaming service, and you’ll like it just the way it is. They want to make us comply through fear of losing access to shit like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all the crap we browse on the internet to bring us some iota of joy, so that the public will be so fearstricken of losing it, they they’ll fork over whatever they need to, in order to do things “legally” and we’ll be screwed into using their service… or else.
It’s a fucking money grab because they’re to chicken shit to prosecute people individually like the RIAA did during the Napster incident.
Either sit down and shut up, or sue the people responsible the way the RIAA did, which already has a judgement on record that you can’t hold the individual who is named as the subscriber for the illegal use of the service they’re subscribed to.
No really… At least one of those Napster RIAA cases went to a judge, and IIRC it was deemed that there was too much opportunity for it to be not the named subscriber that the named subscriber couldn’t be reasonably held liable for the actions of someone else connected to the internet through their connection. Wifi, pretty much guarantees that outcome.
So come at me bro. Good fucking luck you dillholes. Unless they catch you specifically in possession of the illegally obtained products, you’re fine. Just be sure to memorize the “erase everything and catch fire” command for your particular storage. As soon as you get the legal notice they must give you for the lawsuit, run it. They won’t have shit for evidence and the courts will throw out the case, forcing them to pay your legal fees.
And that’s exactly what they’re trying to avoid doing, by punishing people with this legislation. This is essentially a slap suit against the whole fucking country.
It must not pass.
That’s not how pricing works. They already have the price they think makes them the most money. Raising prices means losing customers to competition, netting a loss.
So they would just lose 1000 customers and not raise the price because that would mean an even higher loss.
It’s different, of course when including that all ISPs would be hit with this. One can only speculate what will happen. All those pirates will want alternative ISPs, probably paying extra for privacy. The rest will stay in a dying market where competition for the remaining customers would be fierce, probably with lower prices.
You were too busy talking you missed the point when it knocked you on your ass.
Your entire comment can be summarized with one word: irrelevant.
Yeah, totally, unbiased reporting to advocate for those poor vulnerable ISPs…
If someone is using municipal water in their meth lab, the whole city block shouldn’t have their water shut off
Removed by mod
If someone is using meth in prison, the whole prison should be shut down.
Removed by mod
Also need to stop the “oil burner” trade
If internet companies want to make an argument like that, then internet should be treated as a utility.
If internet companies want to make an argument like that, theninternet should be treated as a utility.Fair nuff
This
Not everyday i agree with ISPs but here we are. Guilty of and accused of are two very different things. Innocent until proven guilty.
Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy. Oh no! Sony and it’s BILLIONS of dollars will surely be affected by pirating their dvd of a movie! Heavens to betsy!
Hell, I don’t even want to ban users guilty of piracy.
Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.
Not for potato supreme. I’m sure labels and sony bought vacations for those sub human coup supporting shits
Never dehumanize fascists or fascist-sympathizers (redundant but ok), it’s always important to remember that bad faith actors or their stooges are human and cannot be entirely eliminated from society, which is why people that fight for positive change have to set the rules such that bad faith actors’ actions are either quickly recognized and mitigated, or have society structured such that even those motivated solely by unempathetic selfishness can only achieve status by masking and contributing positively anyway.
I am not familiar with that, I’m guessing potato supreme is a username or something?
It’s an Idaho-exclusive new dish at Taco Bell.
Well it sounds delicious, and definitely not guilty of piracy
No, of course not. Piracy would sour the cream.
Probably a delicious baked potato dish. Not sure whether cheesy potatoes really care if you’re guilty of piracy, they just want to be eaten.
Why don’t they start with OpenAI and other LLM vendors, because they are the biggest copyright infringement abusers of all time?
Because they’re also rich. Laws are for the poors.
ISPs are rich too?
Which is why the Supreme Court is hearing the case. Two wealthy industries fighting out who gets to extract the most wealth.
In Canada they absolutely are lol
There would be no more internet access for anyone anymore if that were allowed.
Soooo many insecure networks out there ripe for the picking if you know what you’re doing and have the tools available. And the tools are often free, not costing any money. From there, those networks are the places people will go to commit their “piracy”.
And what exactly is piracy? If I purchase an album on iTunes but choose to download it on ThePirateBay, is that really piracy? Because I have done that when the music THAT I FUCKING PAID FOR is no longer available for me to download off of iTunes and Apple won’t give me a refund for said music purchase. People do it for games that include shitty DRM and don’t allow them to easily install on another device like Linux too.
deleted by creator
imagine getting banned from the one monopoly ISP available to you in your entire city. what do you do after that? sell your house?
It’s insane that people (okay, mostly corporations) try to argue internet access is not a utility. What happens then? Does your home value decrease? Or does the next purchaser have to petition the ISP to convince them they are a different, non-infringing customer and hope they reverse the ban??
This happened in the apartment I just moved into. I had to call to verify my identity and they had to unblock something on their side due to the previous tenant ostensibly not paying.
I’m guessing it would be tied to your name. the new tenants would have service, but you might have to move to a different state or something.
Yup, but in our case, I think it’s my phone number (at least that’s what they use for my account number). So I could probably sign up again if I change my number.
Removed by mod
I actually just use my phone for internet and haven’t had a landline ISP for 2 years now.
Visible, $25/month has saved me so much money and they even sent me a free phone.
puts on fake moustache “Hello I am new to the area and would like to procure one internet please.”
Heartbreaking: Worst Corporation(s) you know, just made a good stand
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Unless it’s a 24 hour clock.
So an average of 1.5 times?
A broken digital clock is never right.
Terminating service over allegations of piracy. Kicking someone off the internet because an automated copyright system accused them of piracy. That’s crazy.
So Sony wants to punish ISPs for continuing to “allow” illegal things to happen? Hmm remind me again which company it is that has had so many data breaches that users have come to just expect it? Sounds to me like if they are allowed to pursue attacking internet providers then they themselves should start seeing lawsuits for continuing damages until such time as Sony is able to successfully recover all stolen personal data and other parties can no longer use it for profit.
How can you hold a company responsible for someone else’s actions? When someone hits someone with a car we don’t go after the manufacturer. I think ISPs should only be held accountable for their own actions.
I think they’re trying to apply the same logic that’s applied to internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter, etc., where the platform is only non-liable for copyright violations on their platform if they have a good-faith system in place for preventing copyright infringement and responding to DMCA requests. I don’t think this logic should apply to ISPs, frankly the entire internet is far too large of a place to be monitored by any one company for copyright infringement, and I’d rather ISPs be nationalized and treated as public utilities than try to fit them into the same legal framework as social media companies.
That being said, even if the courts decide they should be forced into that same legal framework, ISPs could easily satisfy their legal obligations by simply blocking access to copyrighted content via their DNS service (which can easily be worked around by using an alternative DNS). There’s no legal reason why ISPs would be expected to block individual users from their network, and even if there were, ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to exist anyway, the state (and therefore the people) paid the lion’s-share of the cost to lay all that fiber-optic and copper cable across the country, so the state should own that infrastructure and operate it in the interest of the people (Internet access would be considered a human right and publicly owned ISPs would only have prices high enough to break even, not generate a profit).
A private business should remain private. If the government an take a business away because of public importance, then there is no incentive for a business to grow.
China, North Korea. They siezed businesses, including internet.
I think that’s the only point we disagree on.
I do think ISPs should have much more competition. Exponentially more.
That would be a fair point if we were talking about like, small businesses in markets that are well-suited to competition, but that is not mpdern ISPs.
Iirc, much of the backbone of the US’s fiber optic cable network is publicly owned anyway, it’s just the “last mile” that’s privately owned, which is the local lengths of fiber that run through neighborhoods to individual residences. But most of this infrastructure was also heavily subsidized by the state, so the way I see it, ISPs are essentially leaches that extract rent from a system paid for by the people and (directly or indirectly) built by the state. Why should we let them collect profit from a network they didn’t build when we could own the entire network publicly and set monthly rates to break even, rather than generate a profit (which would keep prices very low, as seen in Every Other Country with mainly state/municipally owned ISPs).
If you allow the government to take over any private business, for any reason, they will fabricate reasons to do so. Stalin, and Mao did this. Publicly owned means owned by the people.
I never understand how this community relates to copyright. It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned. Then the most dogmatic copyright maximalists come out It’s all anti-capitalist until AI is mentioned and then the most conservative, devout Ayn Rand followers show up.
It’s almost as if the people here favor individual rights over corporate profits.
You have a corporation that doesn’t want to spend money to care for individual copyrights, or even lose customers over it. That describes ISPs. Still, people side with the corporation.
When you say individual rights, you, of course, mean copyrights; intellectual property rights. Giving property such a high priority is such a clash to the otherwise anti-capitalist attitudes here. It’s not just pro capitalist. It’s pro conservative capitalist.
I don’t think anybody here is siding with ISPs. We’re just happy to hear that they’re having difficulties policing piracy.
When I say individual rights I mean any and all rights an individual has or should have. In the case of piracy, an individual should have a right to entertainment media at a reasonable cost. The more corporations increase the cost of media access, the more piracy proliferates. In the case of AI, an individual should have the right to earn a living. Corporations are using the works of individuals to ultimately increase their own profits without due compensation to the individual.
I don’t know how you got to pro conservative capitalism from a single anti-corporatist statement, but it likely took you several leaps of logic that I’m not going to even try to follow.
I see how I misunderstood.
This conception of individual rights seems rather ad hoc. I don’t think I could have guessed that that’s what you meant, rather than copyrights.
I don’t see the connection to copyright, in any case. How does fair use interfere with anyone’s right to earn a living? And if it does, why support the Internet Archive?
Some of it is about the "Why"s.
Netflix nearly stamped out piracy for a while there by being a vastly more attractive alternative. Between them and Hulu, and to a lesser extent prime(at the time) if it was streaming, you could watch it somewhere at a reasonable price for a marginally reasonable viewing experience that was at least as good as most TPB downloads.
Then the IP owners got greedier and decided to strike out on their own with the “everyone has a streaming service” model, which would be GREAT if they largely shared content, but they don’t.
The greed continues, not in order to adequately compensate creators, but to make a few handfuls of people not just rich but filthy rich. Every action they take suddenly becomes more penny pinching for more greed. At this point lots of the CONTENT CREATORS wish they had a better choice (how often do they say ‘please watch it this way, that’s just how they rank stuff, sorry’?)
Why is it the opposite with AI?
Because in comparison with stuff like streaming video or music platforms, AI is BARELY pretending to offer a functional service in exchange for the greed that’s behind all of the money they’re trying to force it to make for them.
And that’s just for one side of the debate.
Why isn’t the fact that AI is largely garnering the same responses even from DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GROUPS telling you something about how bad of an idea it is in it’s current incarnation?
To me the AI thing is about big vs small.
Steal from a big company, that’s the cost of doing business baby!
Steal from a small business and… WTF do you think you’re doing?
The AI thing is largely large companies stealing from everyone. Large and small alike.
Real-world example: I’m not alone in this, as has been made clear from my time on the internet, but if I saw someone shoplifting groceries from Walmart or something, then, I didn’t see anyone stealing from Walmart. I didn’t see shit. Turn that around and say someone stole some handmade trinket from a booth at a convention, I’m going to go find the nearest security guard.
AI steals from small artists and authors, commentators and you and I, as much as it steals from big businesses. We, the people, don’t have the same capability to fight against someone like openAI taking our shit, compared to a multinational media conglomerate. The AI folks seem to believe that it’s fine as long as nobody complains, then enter agreements with meta and Reddit to buy up all of our written, photographed, and otherwise self-published information to buy everything we’ve ever submitted to their platform.
The big companies are raping us of our intellectual property, claiming it as their own, and selling it to other businesses for fun and profit. We generated all of that content that they sold and they gave us nothing for it. They got it for free, all the while, selling us ads and confusing “algorithm based” feeds of bullshit to try to enhance their bottom line.
We’ve been lied to, stolen from, intellectually and financially raped, and we’ve gotten nothing in return. They took our inherent need to connect with one another, and turned it into dollars in their bank accounts. They’re not providing a service, certainly not providing one worth using… What they are doing is farming us to line their own pockets. Our ideas, thoughts, comments, videos and pictures are their crops that they repackage and sell to whomever will pay for it. This is just the latest in “people are the product” things that gets repackaged and resold back to the people it came from, and we get the privilege to pay to use the AI they develop off the backs of our labor.
If AI wants to steal from big businesses like news media outlets, or companies like Disney, nobody would give any shits about it. Go the fuck ahead. You want to wholesale steal the thoughts and ideas of every person who has ever submitted anything to the internet? Fuck you.
AI is borderline useless anyways, just the hallucinations of a machine that’s doing it’s best to regurgitate the most likely combination of symbols that will make the “success” metric go up. The order of those symbols is entirely based on a long history of what symbols, in what order, followed a real interaction between two flesh creatures. Emulate the response of the flesh creatures, win the favor of the flesh creatures.
It doesn’t think, it doesn’t care, it gives canned responses from a mind bogglingly large dataset of possibilities. The ones that are given the blessing of the fleshy creators are ranked higher than those that don’t. It’s a tape recorder with more steps. A lot more.
Why isn’t the fact that AI is largely garnering the same responses even from DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GROUPS telling you something about how bad of an idea it is in it’s current incarnation?
I’m not seeing anything remarkable from organized groups. For example, the Internet Archive and libraries favor strong fair use. The copyright industry obviously sees this as an opportunity to expand property rights against the public interest. Tech companies have always been on either side, depending on their particular interest. Basically, everyone is on the usual side, just as you’d expect. Only on social media are things kinda weird. I don’t think people are considering their own interests, but I really don’t get what drives this.
Here’s my guess. Piracy provides a competition against the horrible practices of streaming and entertainment companies that doesn’t otherwise exist, forcing them to provide a better service.
Artists are just a single person making art and their service isn’t gobbled up by the capitalist machine and turned into something user unfriendly. They don’t usually make too much money, unlike huge entertainment corporations, either.
When it comes to piracy, individual content creators often don’t care as long as they get money to live. There have been people who work on video games or movies who say they don’t care if others pirate their work as long as others get to see it. But for AI, it copies and changes the work, stripping the art of its original watermark, and it sets itself up to be a replacement of the artist itself. It doesn’t just spread their work without having you pay for it, it replaces the concept of needing an artist altogether, but only by using their labor in the first place without paying them for it.
If piracy let movie studios replace the idea of needing individual content creators, writers, artists actors, etc then people would feel differently I think. As it is now, people don’t care about big studios, they care about the individual. Piracy currently only really harms the former and not the latter. AI is the opposite.
Copyright is the same for everyone; corporations or people, rich or poor. Financially speaking, this issue has close to 0 to do with individual content creators, much less struggling ones. They are simply not the big content owners.
PR companies know that people care about the individual. So when they shill for a law, they will send in some individual. It’s never about money for corporations or the rich, but always about the “hard-working American”; and then say hello to some Joe, the plumber. I can see why artists on social media would discourage their followers from going to the competition. But the whole copyright angle won’t save anyone’s job.
Everyone is different.
I personally think copyright and patent laws need to die. If you can’t protect your own secrets, don’t rely on taxpayer resources to do it for you.
White-collar workers were cool with machines and poorer nations taking blue-collar jobs. Now that it threatens them and their money, the hypocrisy is on full display.
White-collar workers were cool with machines and poorer nations taking blue-collar jobs. Now that it threatens them and their money, the hypocrisy is on full display.
Heh. Yes. It’s even beyond hypocrisy. Many will outright say that automation is supposed to churn over these “dirty, boring” jobs while making their own lives better. Even finding themselves on the receiving end of progress, they don’t call for a better social safety net. No, they just want to get rent for their property. I wonder how much copyright industry has to do with the steady move to the economic right, through its huge influence on culture.
Well yeah, but the displaced workers should get a share of the profits. Most proponents of automation are also proponents of a UBI. It’s not supposed to be an existential threat.
Americans would not want the price of produce to get higher but a) it relies on employing undocumented labor and b) it’s very hard to find American citizens these days willing to do that kind of hard physical work.
No it isn’t. It’s very hard to find Americans willing and to work hours past a normal shift with little to no protective gear in a workplace that makes OSHA look like a bedtime fable.
Put workers in shifts, give them gear, and stop asking ridiculously dangerous stuff, and you’ll find plenty of Americans willing to work the job. The Meat Packing industry is the perfect example of this because they were hiring Americans. Then they decided immigrants were cheaper and they raised the price. This idea of them passing the savings along is literally marketing material. They aren’t dripping prices unless the market forces them to do so.
It was always the boss versus the workers.
It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned.
The issue isn’t quite so much copyright as privatization. And the distinction between “freedom on the high seas” and “AI” gets into the idea of the long term ownership of media.
One of the problems I run into, as a consumer of media, is that I can purchase a piece of content and then discover the service or medium I purchased it on has gone defunct. Maybe its an old video game with a console that’s broken or no longer able to hook up to my TV. Maybe its a movie I bought on a streaming service that no longer exists. Maybe its personal content I’ve created that I’d like to transfer between devices or extend to other people. Maybe its a piece of media I don’t trust sending through the mail, so I’d prefer to transfer it digitally. Maybe its a piece of media I can’t buy, because no one is selling it anymore.
Under the Torrent model, I can give or get a copy of a piece of media I already own in a format that my current set of devices support. Like with a library.
Under the AI model, somebody else gets to try and extort licensing fees from me for a thing they never legally possessed to begin with.
I see a huge distinction between these two methods of data ownership and distribution.
That is so true. If Steam goes away, so does all of my games. I should have the right to have a local setup binary on my computer, like GOG.
I may not be understanding the logic here. It sounds like your issue is control. You want to have control over media you bought, and you want to have control over AI models rather than just a subscription.
There are a number of open models. As far as I can see, these are also largely rejected by this community. In lawsuits against their makers, the community also sides against fair use.
There are a number of open models.
The complaint is not with the consumer grade home rolled models.
As far as I can tell, this community hates open models just as much as any others. Some seem to hate them even more. That’s the point about this “nightshade” tool.
Perhaps they’re confusing “open model” with “OpenAI” which is more of a misnomer given it’s increasingly cloistered state.
But I tend to see people angry at the massive waste of resources in the enormous privatized patches of turf. Grok, for instance, fucking up a low income community in Mississippi with it’s fleet of gas generators.
That’s what’s so depressing about lemmy. People convince me that there is some genuine issue that should be addressed. The mob grabs torches and pitchforks and goes to demand that… Money be given to rich people instead of changing anything. It certainly makes you understand why the world is as it is and that it will only become more so.
Personally I think AI training is free use. I also think AI is a fad and generally used as a way to scam people.
However, artists complain about AI because it pulls from their business (in theory.) Artists generally don’t complain about piracy by the end user because the artist is usually still credited in someway (signature watermark etc.) and piracy doesn’t generally stop other people from paying for their art. AI in theory steals their jobs.
The main people who complain about traditional piracy are the executives of companies that purchased copyright on artist’s works through contracts that do not favor the artists.
Removed by mod
Hmm. That’s not how the US legal concept Fair Use works. What do you mean when you say fair use?
I would infer from what they wrote that they mean anything not for profit. Seeding isn’t “fair use” in the legal definition.
Removed by mod
Yes, but it’s still not quite clear. Arguably, when you pirate rather than paying, your profit is the money saved on the purchase. Courts tend to see it that way.
Besides, Meta releases its models for free and I don’t see them getting less flak. In fact, when they were sued by the NYT corporation looking for a profit, people still sided with the profiteers.
Yeah, that’s what happens when you decide on issues separately instead of following a consistent set of principles. I, personally, try to follow a consistent set of principles, with as few caveats as I can muster. Here’s my take:
- copyright should be much shorter, perhaps back to the original 14 years w/ a single optional renewal of 14 years - principle: information should be freely available; caveat: smaller creators shouldn’t get immediately screwed by a large org with more publishing capacity
- ISPs should only provide internet, and if a law is broken, LE should go after individuals - principle: personal responsibility, ISPs aren’t responsible for how you use their service, they’re only responsible for providing a consistent service
- piracy is wrong, but it shouldn’t be prioritized - principle: piracy is a form of theft, since you’re accessing something you don’t have a legal right to; caveat: there’s no evidence that piracy actually reduces sales, and some evidence that it improves it, so let it be
- AI is copyright violation because it has been shown to be capable of reproducing entire texts, so AI companies should compensate creators - principle: copyright, as above; exception: personal use should be fine (similar argument as piracy), but commercial use is profiting off another’s work directly
I think everyone should decide what their principles are, and frame every time they deviate as an exception to those principles instead of just taking every issue at face value. If we don’t have that foundation, everything becomes way too subjective.
I take my principles from libertarianism (NAP), not from objectivism (Ayn Rand), and I make exceptions based on utilitarianism.
It still makes me feel some type of way that Sony (a Japanese company) gets so much sway over US business and policies. It’s something I thought about a lot when Microsoft was trying to close its deal with Activision. I don’t care much either way about multi-billion dollar conglomerates (or trillions in Microsoft’s case) butting heads but it did strike me as odd that a foreign company had that much of a hold on the deal. I get that piracy of media is frowned upon but like the ISP’s are arguing here, the affects of cutting off access to their clientele would have a lot of negative impact. I once again sit here wondering why a foreign company should have that kind of power over American citizens… you know?
May I introduce you to Nintendo?
This may have something to do with it. One hand washing the other, as the saying goes.
The supremes: oh! Yes! We are on your side ISPs! The MPAA and RIAA will now be allowed to sue individual users directly bypassing courts.
Have fun! You got them boys! You got that 98 year old grandma! Get her house! And that minority girl trying to download the new Beyonce songs? Deathrow! 1 per song! All the single ladies our ass! You wouldn’t download a car! We’re the Supremes! Watch us! But first Trump is president starting now, and poor kids shall get no food in school! They wouldn’t be poor if they got food! Oh and women…we did the abortion thing already darn!..no vote for women! Marriage age 6 now, overruling all states laws.
Let’s get you back to your room Mr. Thomas.
