• PanaX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Based on that logic, ammunition and arms manufacturers should be held liable for damages as well.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The US has a law to limit the liability of gun manufacturers.

      The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.

      • Luffy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because of fucking course there is

        Were talking about Jesusland after all

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      More like, if you steal something you are banned from using roads and sidewalks and doors.

      • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Gonna be a lot of issues that come from this. Legally speaking. It’s already on the books that an IP address doesn’t represent a single person… so I’m not terribly clear on how they plan to enforce this even if it were to pass.

      • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, sure but to “steal something” is to imply that you’re depriving the original owner use of the thing you stole. This is more like making an exact copy depriving nobody of use of the original thing.

        it’s more like depriving someone use of roads, sidewalks, and doors because they got caught walking out of Kinkos

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The mere accusation causing someone to lose the Internet, which is vital to modern life, would be insane.

    Additionally, it would do little to nothing to stop piracy.

    • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      they actually do think that if you stop piracy people will flock back to streaming services when in reality all that will happen is i’ll just watch more twitch.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You wouldn’t be able to access twitch. You’d have to buy cable TV or an antenna for the free channels. Either way media wins via commercials.

        • kevincox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Then they’ll lobby against public WiFi. I was in China recently and (depending on the province) you need a phone number to access public WiFi so that they know who you are.

          • ManOMorphos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I hope that this doesn’t come to the US. Even now, a lot of the available Wifi hotspots are from cable companies (which require their account logins, so they definitely will know who you are).

            Would giving a throwaway VOIP number that’s untraceable to someone fool that kind of service, I wonder? Unless caught right away, they would probably have to get their identity on an individual basis.

            • kevincox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              In China there is no such thing as a throwaway number (at least outside of black markets). All numbers require ID to acquire.

              For the US it would be a bit different. VOIP numbers do exist but they are often also blocked by services (this isn’t black and white but there are services that will quite accurately map numbers into ranges like home/cell/business/VoIP).

              But of course the assumption would be that if they start requiring phone numbers for WiFi access the logical next step would be to make all numbers traceable to humans.

        • flandish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          i imagine you in a mcdonalds with an 80’s era easy bake oven plugged into an outlet in a booth with a sign saying “free cookies.”

  • Sickday@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    What will they do when entire College campuses lose internet access because half their students are pirating text books

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    low key hope this happens.

    it’s gonna be fuckin funny to watch all IT in the US grind to a halt because everyone who WFH can’t work because their internet was cut off.

    then a week into mandatory office returns someone will get the whole datacenter cut off because they’re running torrents from their laptop.

    dumb fucks are going after the worst people to fuck with.

    • fieldworkers
    • women
    • gamers
    • IT support

    don’t fuck with IT. they know what filthy shit you watch from home.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m not a judge, but isn’t internet essentially a utility these days? Cutting someone off because of piracy seems like cutting off electricity or water because they did something illegal with it.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Pragmatically, yes. Legally, no. Progressives have been fighting for years to get internet classified as a utility in the US, and regressives and (ironically) internet companies have been fighting against that effort at every turn in the name of profit.

      And now look how well that’s turned out. Gee, if only some people had warned them that deregulation was a monkey’s paw…

    • SillyDude@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Inb4 palantir cuts off your electric and water because you had 15% eye distraction during the mandatory 3hr nightly fox news viewing.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don’t have a right to electricity, or even water. They’ll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.

        • jumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          to be fair the treaty never specified anything about water, and the Navajo nations should have had better lawyers or better guerilla warfare tactics if they wanted more negotiating power.

        • tomenzgg@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Besides your point but this is the aspect about Gorsuch that I can’t seem to make internally consistent. He almost always rules in terms of native rights – even when, I think, it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle – yet is more than happy to rule as a conservative on all other times and support “industry” and big business (even when it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle).

          I know that nothing necessitates a person to act logically and most act from emotion, more than anything, but most people, I find, have a relative reason they think they’re being logically consistent but I can’t seem to suss even that out, with regards to him.

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m some places in the States they will cut off your electricity or water for sharing with a neighbor that has had theirs shut off. I have seen both happen personally, and not in some back water state. They both happened in upstate NY.

    • JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not a United Statesian so I have no clue anymore how it works there, but other places have been making the case that the Internet is an essential service and that access to it is a basic right. So to leapfrog off your question, is that like a poor person stealing a loaf of bread being cut off from food because they didn’t food responsibly enough?

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Net neutrality is why your online jokes were censored under Biden

        – John McRacist, Republican congressman, former CFO of Evil Inc., former lawyer of Vile Ltd., member of Christofascism Society and Roman Salutes to Jesus

  • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    What about legitimate torrented content? Are they going to outlaw the technology outright? Don’t plenty of legitimate downloads use torrents to speed up software updates and such?

  • obsidianfoxxy7870@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The unproven claims is the key part here. Also the point of “terminating an account would punish every user in a household” is important as well.

    You can fine someone for piracy if you want. As long as they have the standard legal protections. But cutting access is excessive.

  • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m not doing piracy, I’m just trading a lot of data packets with a Proton Server in Switzerland, nothing to see here 😉

    • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is actually why I usually install a VPS in whichever country I’m physically in—my end devices always appear to be connecting to something innocent in-country (like a corporate VPN). That VPS then does the double-hop out of the country so that the VPS also seems pretty innocent too.

      I don’t think it’s actually more secure though since the VPS is in my name and it’s technically decrypting everything. But I’m a bit less paranoid about that. (I’m not doing tons of illegal shit anyway.)

      • Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Look at it this way. Who would you rather risk pissing off, your ISP or a VSP Hosting company?

        put the qbittorrent-wireguard container on the vps.