1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
>"The evidence at trial demonstrated that Grande had a simple measure available to it to prevent further damages to copyrighted works (i.e., terminating repeat infringing subscribers), but that Grande never took it," the 5th Circuit ruling said.
Much like how you can prevent speeding by seizing a person's car.
Why are the courts still acting like piracy is even a crime? It's been clearly, and repeatedly, shown to correlate with higher sales. I'd be surprised if piracy, on the whole, hasn't been declining due to all the terrible crap that's been put out over the last decade.
But no, they're going to block this ISP from serving customers due to something they have no control over. Do ISPs not have Section 230 protections? Or just the jewed ones?
Section 230 should cover all service providers, including ISPs, cloud services and forums hosting user provided content. Most other developed countries never needed such regulations as hard evidence is required to convict someone for internet related "crimes", hence it could never be proven that a service provider is in any way responsible.
(((They))) did some changes to section 230 recently tho, perhaps it only protects some chosen providers now, I can't remember, but do notice how many smaller services has become a lot more careful recently.
Lol. Kikes seething always makes me laugh.