Next step: sue the power companies for providing electricity to the bad, nasty pirates, their landlords for allowing the egregious acts of piracy on their property, and their mothers for not raising them right… /facepalm
and after that, sue the the grocery store industry for feeding those criminal scum.
May as well sue themselves for not suing them sooner
Suing the Amazon next for providing the criminals with oxygen.
That fucking algae in the ocean, how does it sleep at night knowing the crimes it’s perpetuating?!
Nuke the entire earth for spawning the species that would eventually become pirates.
Then they’ll sue themselves for not making their music more available for people to buy.
no, they got the blueprint now, just nuke the pirates ISP service, in most cases them, and their families/roomates have lost all ability to connect to the internet
Removed by mod
It’s like getting mad at the highway department because drug smugglers use their roads.
This is way too funny. I love it.
They’re probably just trying their luck with the current state of the American judicial system.
I mean, they just have to appeal until they get to the Supreme Court, then give the judges an RV and they’ll rule that all service providers must police their customers or some other far-reaching shit like that.
This is the nuclear option, it’s not being sued, it’s being in a remote location with only one local ISP that provides service to your area, getting caught torrenting, and then having the ISP terminate your service. You are fucked.
About 15 years ago this happened to me they canceled my internet and I was super bummed. For some reason like 2 days later with the modem still hooked up but no internet I tried using my VPN and bam I was back online I still don’t understand how but through the vpn I still had internet for like 6 months
Sounds like they could have been lazy and simply disabled/blocked your dns lookups, or stopped providing your route to 0.0.0.0/0. VPN provides new dns provider and a route to the internet at large, and you’re back in business.
It couldn’t be a routing issue, because they’d never be able to get past the modem out to the rest of the world.
The DNS one is a pretty good guess. Another is that they were just doing HTTP redirects on every lookup. If this was >14 years ago, FireSheep had not been released yet (2010) and most sites only did HTTPS for authentication, and browsers didn’t really try HTTPS first. So a lazy but semi competent admin could just redirect all the port 53/80 traffic and hose a normal browsing session, but a VPN coming up with direct IP config would bypass that and bring them back online.
Starlink
That doesn’t really solve the issue though.
So they’re going to provide a list of the pirate’s identities along with complete records of what filenames were downloaded, what percentage was completed, and proof that the labels actually own the contents of what was in those files (regardless of the actual filenames)… right? No? Yeah I didn’t think so. How are the courts still entertaining these broad lawsuits that never seem to prove any wrongdoing? Oh this person torrented some perfectly legal files so you want the ISP to cut them off because “they might have downloaded a movie we didn’t notice”?
I just hope that 1 IP they’re so bent over turns out to be a CGNAT IP.
Yo that is why we need net neutrality
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Major record labels sued Verizon on Friday, alleging that the Internet service provider violated copyright law by continuing to serve customers accused of pirating music.
They say that “Verizon has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by tens of thousands of its subscribers.”
Cox received support from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which warned that the big money judgment could cause broadband providers to disconnect people from the Internet based only on accusations of copyright infringement.
While judges in the Cox case reversed a vicarious liability verdict, they affirmed the jury’s additional finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.
“Yet rather than taking any steps to address its customers’ illegal use of its network, Verizon deliberately chose to ignore Plaintiffs’ notices, willfully blinding itself to that information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations.”
The lawsuit also complains that Verizon hasn’t made it easier for copyright owners to file complaints about Internet users:
The original article contains 850 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
should have started with the landlords
