'Clement said that hotels limit speeds to restrict peer-to-peer downloading, and suggested that universities do the same. “I don’t think it would be the end of the world if universities provided service at a speed that was sufficient for most other purposes but didn’t allow the students to take full advantage of BitTorrent,” he said. “I could live in that world."'
Insane. So Sony's lawyer is arguing that every university student should have sub-broadband internet speeds simply because a small fraction of the students infringes copyright.
Like YEAH, of course, they were not obligated to do anything under the DMCA, they were not hosting the material in question. Also, just because Sony sends you a letter alleging someone who is using your service is doing something 'illegal', doesn't mean they are. Why should Cox bear the burden of an investigation when there is no legal requirement to do so?
I wonder if this precedent is set, will that mean they are required to shut off Open AI's internet, when I put in a DMCA complaint that they pirated my IP?... Nah, American Law only applies to the poor.
Why are we letting them send frivolous notices and make the ISP a letter carrier in the first place?
calmworm•2mo ago
Cox can fuck off, too. Ideally they would not have any idea what their customers are doing but that doesn’t make them enough money. They must sell a product and also make their customers a product.
defrost•2mo ago
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd & others v iiNet Ltd (commonly known as AFACT v iiNet)
* The trial court delivered judgment on 4 February 2010, dismissing the application and awarding costs to iiNet.* An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed.
* A subsequent appeal to the High Court was unanimously dismissed on 20 April 2012.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_Pty_Ltd_v_iiNet...