New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
ISPs not responsible for Copyright material.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
"Earlier: In a 9–0 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that internet service providers cannot be held liable for copyright infringement or other illegal acts committed by their users. The ruling in Cox v. Sony tosses a previous $1.5 billion verdict."
https://x.com/i/status/2036900354269601909
Well that's good news!
Comments
Yes. And I would argue for reduction duration of copyright protection to 20 years.
Hell yes
That is huge, Cox has been fighting this for so long.
https://torrentfreak.com/cox-communications-sued-for-not-disconnecting-pirates-141128/
good news for me, bad news for those VPN providers
why 20 and not 10 or 30?
It's nice to see some sense coming from the government for a change.
I feel like 20 years seems like a good block size (Considering the length of a generation, 20-25 years). but the current lengths of 95 to 120 years seems crazy but you know its just a game of how long can you milk a bull.
Harmonization with patent law. We should also consider second-class protection for non-master e.g recordings from concert, live-action, remake, etc for 5-10 years.
On the other hand, 20 years is the average interval between a generation. So, there's a possibility of sequel being released if there's enough interest generated
Finally sanity prevails.
I think it'd be somewhat fair to determine copyright length based on how much of your life your spent creating the thing.
E.g. if you're churning out 10 trashy romantic novels a year, maybe 5-10 years is a decent copyright length. If you spend 10 years writing a massive epic, then maybe 20 years copyright length is fair to compensate you for all that time working without an income.
It's obviously more complicated when it involves a company or a group of people, but there's probably similar rules that could be applied. It's unlikely a game will still be earning significant revenue after 10 year except for a very few outliers. Films probably have more of a historical legacy, but still I doubt the people originally involved in a production see any of the royalties after 10 years, except again in a very few rare cases. Music I'd argue is maybe similar. Like there are still royalties from 40 years ago, but for many musicians the majority of their income actually comes from touring and doing live music.
But for all of these, maybe society would be better if copyright was shorter and people were incentivised to keep innovating to keep new material relevant.
You do mention it being outlier but those outliers can skew the proportion too so its worth putting into discussion
Roblox started in 2004. Right now it had peak user numbers of 350 million
All of steam had combined peak user numbers of 80 million
So in a way gaming can be simplified into all games vs roblox/(minecraft/fortnite maybe)
I was afraid of the verdict of this case. Glad to see you it go 9-0.
Also WoW. However, if copyright terms were shorter, I guess companies would favour smaller standalone episodic content (maybe porting save game progress between games somehow) rather than just extending an open world game over and over. I'm actually not sure what's better from a user experience.
Let me repack your argument. You're describing vast amount of field with different business arrangements, and I will address that by, how the original creator are massively cheated by their partners through asymmetrical bargaining power:
None of these people received the benefit of lengthened copyright protection. It's the IP owner who benefits.
And as you said, the bands received more income from touring and selling T-shirts.
That's why I proposed emulating steam's the tapered pricing model, where the price will keep declining until it's free on expiry date. Decreasing price would convert those who wouldn't have purchased the goods into purchasing customer.
Copyright owners reported "loss revenue" due to piracy. But, if they really care about the revenue, they should have reduced the prices over time to increase sales
sony is really a shit company, always trying this things, never buy a playstation, your acc can easily get hacked, taken over, abused and only way is to proof that your name in the acc matches your ID, which is at gamers normally never the case. worked for them half a year, it is terrible....
wh-1000xm4 are great headphones though.
They have a duty around KYC, even more than most providers, as they support live voice chat as well where there's even more risk to kids than most of the current legislation is trying to deal with.
If you put false details on your Sony account and can't prove it's yours, I think that's kind of your own fault. That said, I don't think my old PSN account ever had anything other than my e-mail address as I always purchased the yearly subscription with gift cards but maybe I did add a credit card / billing address at some point as it does ring a bell.
You enjoy milking bulls too?
Back on topic: the ruling is correct in my opinion. ISPs can not and should not be held responsible for what users do. That being said, they should not log or record all the communication of their users either, but respect customer's complete privacy.
Important to note this ruling is not a free pass for the bulletproof hosting providers:
If a service is marketed as violating copyright laws or generally understood to not enforce copyright laws you're still going to get hammered by the law.
and:
The court determined Cox was working in good faith to deter piracy on their systems and able to prove their temporary ban / call-in education systems stopped the vast majority of (detected) piracy on their network while also balancing the needs of consumers with limited internet choices.
Basically:
So it's more leniency for providers & customers operating in good faith -- not a free pass to go do crime.
Years on mercury please
Venus takes too long to go around the sun
Earth has abssurd humans
But it is good news for those who want to run Tor exit relays. This ruling, if it had gone the other way, could have made running an exit in the US riskier.
bro, i worked 6 months on phone and chat for them, 90% of the users put wrong data and most of them forget about it, the acc gets hacked and you can not get it back, thats it, point. I had days where hackers and original acc owner called every 10 min to get the acc back, than you have to do detective work and find out who is the real owner, cause hacker easily could verify the necessary information.
ah and I forgot to mention, the dead end question, please give me the serial of your first playstation for this account.
did you wrote down the serial of your ever first playstation 15 years ago....?
that is not KYC, that is madness, blizzard for example asks you about your account, games you played and chars you have in your account, a gamer, who build the account, can easily answer those very specific details about his account, a hacker not.
It's the fair & square deals. For example, a DMCA should include details of earnings, as a proof that the publisher or IP owner are actively using the pricing tools to increase revenue before it goes to public domain. Controlled lending like internet archive should also be considered legal.
No, it shouldn't.
"Prove you're making money from this before I steal your work." Fuck that noise.
I am not saying yes or no. Just pay me first.