this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
152 points (97.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55076 readers
410 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

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

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

[–] hoshikarakitaridia 3 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

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