ListNook

Gradstudentiquette69 Mar 25, 2026 +67

While I usually disagree with this supreme court I do agree that ISPs (or anyone) shouldn't be held liable for users downloading copywritten material since I don't believe you can steal something that is infinitely reproducible.

67

MentalDisintegrat1on Mar 25, 2026 +10

It's not stealing it's copyright infringement the courts have said this and it's why people are not getting fined a comical amount of money. I don't know if you remember limewire and morphiius but RIAA and the MPAA would catch people and charge them like 200x of what they downloaded. It being settled as copyright infringement made it so they couldn't do that.

10

shadowromantic Mar 25, 2026 +4

Hard disagree. Artists deserve compensation for their work. Yes, the technology makes duplication free, but that doesn't make it ethical.

4

Gradstudentiquette69 Mar 25, 2026 +3

The smaller the artist the less ethical it is, I would go so far as to say that if you know the artist is struggling and you don't compensate them, it is completely unethical. That being said,I don't know where that line exactly is, but while the starving artist definitely deserves a high standard of living, it's also true that Disney doesn't deserve a single penny for things it didn't create and simply paid money to have the legal "right'' to earn even more money from it. A century ago works of art went into the public domain after 25 years, now, partially thanks to Disney, copyright is for the life of the copyright owner plus 90 years. I didn't say artists, because many artists are not the copyright owner of their art, the company they work for is.

3

Perry_cox29 Mar 25, 2026

You know that the music industry needs way more than just artists to survive, right? That artist needs recording engineers and mixing engineers, and the album needs artwork and promotional material to go on streaming services so it gets noticed, and someone has to coordinate that, and lawyers have to make sure that the rights to the work are registered and protected and that everyone who works on it gets the rights royalty split, and engineers have to code the infrastructure that legally delivers that music via a streaming platform AND ALL of those people make their living off the money that comes in from the music being accessed legally, and the artist would not have the time in a day to write and record if they had to do all of those jobs too

0

Casiquire Mar 26, 2026 +3

String disagree. Artists deserve more pay, not more free theft of their work

3

Ok_World_wtf Mar 25, 2026 -41

With current technologies anything can be reproduced easily. Artists need to get paid if it’s being shared through another’s website no matter. Edit: so you’re all for Cox. It’s multiple billion dollar companies going after Cox to take responsibility for pirating. These are music companies with artists that need to have their work protected and paid for. So why the downvotes??? Last edit: I get it now, the downvotes are from people that don’t want to pay for music because their thinking is that the artists are getting screwed anyway from the record labels, so hold on to your money. Everybody is different no doubt Okay, wtf last one: downvoting doesn’t help develop critical thinking

-41

Gradstudentiquette69 Mar 25, 2026 +19

I said infinitely reproduced, not easily reproduced. There is no theoretical limit to digital copies, NFTs tried and failed to fix this as they are now confirmed to be worthless. I agree 100% with paying artists, and the smaller the artist, the less ethical taking without supporting becomes, but on the other end of that, Disney shouldn't get any more money for "The Sound of Music." The have enough money and aren't as incentivized to keep making new content.

19

Larkson9999 Mar 25, 2026 +15

The artists do get paid, the loss of money always comes out of the pockets of the billionaire scumbags that own everything. And before you say, "Then they'll stop paying artists!" they are already trying to do that via AI. F*** these people.

15

Ok_World_wtf Mar 25, 2026

You’re arguing a different issue that also needs to be resolved. If there’s pirating, it affects the artist in more ways than monetarily.

0

ExaminationPutrid626 Mar 25, 2026 +4

This doesn't affect artists at all.

4

Ok_World_wtf Mar 25, 2026

I disagree. If there’s pirating of someone creations online, it most definitely affects the artist in ways that go beyond getting paid, though it is all about the cash

0

MX64 Mar 26, 2026

speaking as an artist, i think that's just a reality to deal with. fighting piracy is a losing battle and art being infinitely reproducible out of control is better than art being tightly controlled into artificial scarcity.

0

valentc Mar 25, 2026 -17

Im sorry, what etiquette graduate would hide their profile like that? Are you afraid theres no enough good comment etiquette? Good comment etiquette here tho, here's a rocket ship prize. (_)_):::::::::::::::D

-17

cwaterbottom Mar 25, 2026 +50

How do you even get caught pirating in 2026? Is it new or inexperienced people not taking the basic precautions? It seems like most sites and services are crawling with warnings about using a vpn etc.

50

MentalDisintegrat1on Mar 25, 2026 +26

I believe if they do a deep packet inspection they can see what you are doing ( someone explained it to me I could be wrong) That said they are going to go after VPNs next and claim it's for our protection.

26

cwaterbottom Mar 25, 2026 +10

Yeah I agree it's only a matter of time, but it's just part of the eternal dance between copyright holders and pirates. Nobody can decide who's leading and the song is royalty free.

10

MentalDisintegrat1on Mar 25, 2026 +26

They will never stop piracy even if the Internet went down people would go back to selling bootleg CDs and flash drives with Media. The thing is piracy was on a downtrend when streaming services charged a reasonable price but now they moved it to the cable model of overcharging and everyone has a service so you are paying multiple times. Gabe said it best piracy is a service problem if you have a good service more people will pay out of convenience.

26

cwaterbottom Mar 25, 2026 +10

It's hilarious/endearing that he said that because I was an unrepentant and prolific game pirate until I actually created a steam account (and discovered cheapshark.com and later isthereanydeal.com), there really wasn't any need for me to pirate anything because it was all so available and well supported. When they finally implemented the refund policy a few years later that was the final nail, I'd still grab a cracked copy to try something out and then buy it or not, but once I could just refund it if I *really* didn't like it, then what's the point of piracy? Now they pushed out demos for tons of games with more coming so it's even better. Movies, series, and audiobooks though? I have a 12TB NAS and it's going to need an expansion soon.

10

IrrelevantLeprechaun Mar 25, 2026 +2

They've had VPNs in their sights for the past decade. I'm honestly surprised they haven't gone after them already.

2

cwaterbottom Mar 26, 2026 +2

I'm sure every credible expert they bring in to consult tells the government it's going to be incredibly costly and ultimately pointless

2

Wrabble127 Mar 26, 2026 +2

VPNs are required for any kind of half competent company network security. Banning VPNs outright will never work because that would completely cripple any medium to large business. They might try to do something like ban VPNs that connect to servers you don't own, but good luck tracking that down and proving it+all vpn companies would need to do is rent out infrastructure instead. Would make it more complicated and expensive, but banning VPNs outright would be like banning encryption.

2

mfmeitbual Mar 26, 2026 +1

I'm like... 99% sure most modern VPN protocols utilize encryption that would defeat any packet inspection.

1

Athinira Mar 26, 2026 +1

>I believe if they do a deep packet inspection they can see what you are doing ( someone explained it to me I could be wrong) You're wrong. Not your fault though. The Deep Packet Inspection myth is one I've heard several times, so it's something that a lot of people are spreading without having the relevant knowledge about the concept. Beyond the fact that almost all internet traffic these days is encrypted, the record labels don't have to right to scan your internet connection at any rate. It's like a wire tap. It's not something they have access to. The correct explanation is typically that they listen in when they can. Let's say you download or share/seed something via the BitTorrent protocol. They can get your IP address and port via. a tracker, because in order to download or share something on BitTorrent, you have to announce your IP address and port to the world. So they know when someone is seeding or downloading a t****** with copyrighted content. They can then see which ISP is in charge of that IP address, contact them and give them the info, which allows the ISP to identify who the customer is. Even if multiple customers share the same IP address (CGNAT), providing the port and time will enable the ISP to find the specific customer.

1

mfmeitbual Mar 26, 2026 +1

also DNS lookups.

1

Ok_World_wtf Mar 25, 2026 +1

The word ‘Supreme’ should be changed to MAGA

1

Evil_3mpire Mar 26, 2026 +4

Though for once they got something right

4

LowResGamr Mar 26, 2026

Heh, cox.

0

tauberculosis Mar 26, 2026 -1

Well, if they stop charging ridiculous prices to see them play live, I wouldnt rip their shit off the internet. I’d rather hear it live. Wanna charge me $200 for a show? Cool. I’m not paying for the album. Want me to even go to your show? Well, let me hear your you shit first before I make that decision and spend money to see you perform.

-1

a_talking_face Mar 26, 2026 +2

To be fair, the people suing for infringement are pretty much always the record labels. The artist isn't involved at all

2

US Supreme Court backs Cox in fight over p****** music

💬 Send a Message

30 Comments