It feels dirty to agree with an ISP on something. But even the worst corporations are on the right side of something from time to time I suppose.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Difficult to feel sorry for an organisation whose only responsibility is to generate profit for their shareholders. If their policy happens to align with normal human ethics it is a coincidence and they will not spare a moment to consider the plight of their customers when the shoe is on the other foot. Fuck them. Long live the pirates.

  • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I want to say as an employee of an ISP I literally dealt with users who essentially couldn’t get high speed internet anymore at their address because we were the only option and their grandkids downloaded movies. This put the entire household at a grave disadvantage educationally compared to other households. It shouldn’t be a thing.

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      That this is even legal in the first place is insane. Digital communication is at least as vital, if not more vital that postage. Image someone is just banned form getting post delivered or he gets throttled to only once every other week…

  • C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Shut down their access to computer stores and the power companies while you’re at it. Only fair. No piracy without computers or power.

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The road that we’re slowly headed down actually leads to a reality not too far from what you describe.

      Computers are increasingly becoming a nested-doll situation wherein the end user is only given access to a lower privileged portion of hardware that exists within a larger supervisory system, of sorts. It will all be (and currently is) marketed as “for your security” “features” while owner control of computer systems is slowly being eroded.

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

    How about this: courts can’t order ISPs to disconnect customers.

    To me, that’s like ordering my driveway barricaded because I have too many traffic tickets. If I’m breaking the law, charge me with a crime or sue me. But don’t block my internet access, that’s just uncalled for.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Here in NL the ISP’s are refusing to give client info to the government due to privacy policy, giving a big “go fuck yourself” to any agency trying to convict internet pirates. A judge needs to sign for an ISP to release information on soneone, which only happens with large criminal cases like drug sales and child porn distribution. The fight to change the law so ISP’s are forced to release all client info has been going on for years and years now, constantly ending in favor of privacy. ISP’s are asshole companies lurking for your money, but at least they protect client privacy over here.

  • peanutyam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m glad I live in Australia where this doesn’t happen thanks to previous attempts by IP copyright holders (mainly US based ones) to have similar policies forced upon ISP’s here and being told by judges here that the penalties and expectations and demands made by these said IP copyright holding companies was over the top and excessive and thrown out of court……

    • overload@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think the precedent set here was that downloading a copy of a movie carried the penalty of the monetary cost of obtaining the movie lehally, so its just not worth pursuing. I might be wrong about that.

  • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The ISPs? doing something nice?? for the customers???
    Shit, I must have slipped into the wrong timeline or something

  • bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    So I’ve rented a server for years. It’s in the US and it’s a couple bucks a month. It’s fun to play with and I use it however I want. I’ve had an email server, a next cloud instance, and an open VPN instance to name a few things on it. Well I decided to connect a torrent client from my home to the openvpn instance on my server to see if I could do it. It worked really well until the company I rent from forwarded the DMCA hit back to me for downloading Rick and Morty. I should’ve known better but I thought a nameless faceless server farm wouldn’t be worth the hassle of a DMCA but I was wrong.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      A lot of it is the sheer bureaucracy of chasing down actual pirates and weeding them from people who just happen to be on the same IP address.

      If one guy visiting an apartment block downloads a torrent from a public connection, what is ATT supposed to do? Shut down Internet to the entire building?

      This is an undue burden for ISPs, even if the content isn’t living in a gray zone of legality.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        … IP addresses are assigned to modems… They don’t assign IP addresses to… Cables going to buildings I guess lol but ok.

        And if you’re in some fucked up place that has the entire apartment complex’s internet going to one modem, then God save your soul.

        • Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for this. Even with CGNAT and related technologies, each modem still has a unique MAC address at the cable/DOCSIS level (even without loading Ethernet on top).

          Where you could be wrong is buildings with large networks, say an apartment building with wired Ethernet to all the units but all being routed through the same WAN(s), but even still I’d hope that the network is managed in a way that it’s not hard to tell which unit is which IP internally. Unrelated but I’d also pray that each unit is on its own VLAN for security.

          • Hexarei@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            There are some apartment buildings with shared Internet connections that are just open and public; It’s crappy but cheap if someone can’t afford individual connection

            • Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Personally I’d die for Ethernet straight into my unit, I had that once in a new building and it was fantastic (though you still had to pay an ISP individually), if only to avoid cable modems and the like. My current cable ISP wouldn’t provision IPv6 to their very own (old, clunky) modem so I had to go out and buy one that doesn’t care whether or not it’s provisioned.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          this is why everyone should pirate literally anything they can, even if they don’t particularly want it.

          er, with a few very gross exceptions that shouldn’t exist.

    • DUMBASS@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ohh for sure, they know that if they get rid of the pirates, they’d lose half their customer base and will struggle to pay the CEOs bonus.

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Meanwhile, VPN providers be like “come on download stuff 😉😉😉”, wouldn’t that be a much easier case for them to prove willful disregard for piracy?

    • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, but ISPs are rich and VPN providers are not. The most recent numbers I can find for Cox (2020) show $12.6 billion in revenue.

    • marx2k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’ve had VPNs email me that they’ll terminate my account if they find me pirating again after getting notified of DMCA. That was a few years ago by the same VPN I’m still with and have been pirating ever since. I haven’t gotten any more emails so either I didn’t get caught again or they’re just not notifying me any more.

      I didn’t want to lose the VPN though since it gives me a long term IP and allows incoming port for torrenting

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      A day is going to come when the VPNs are going to be targeted for regulation.

      It’s only a matter of time before someone shoots up a school with a 3D printed gun or Epstein’s a terabyte of child porn to a Senator’s office or some other silly bullshit, and then VPNs will become the whipping boy for our litany of problems.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Considering how many corporations rely on VPNs for their workers, I don’t think this would gain much traction.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          A number of countries are experimenting with registration of VPNs and blocking of TOR traffic.

          And there are more than a few VPN series that are explicitly or implicitly compromised by the security services in their own countries.

          I wouldn’t try planning to do the next 9/11 on a ProtonVPN, for instance. The NSA is all over that shit.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        In autocratic states where VPNs are blocked, they use VPNs that are harder to detect. So by the time they decide to criminalize VPN use in the free (read slightly less un-free) world, we’ll still have a cornucopia of options.

        It’s like FBI trying to ban encryption or get it regulated when we already have encryption technology that is deniable.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          n autocratic states where VPNs are blocked, they use VPNs that are harder to detect

          Paying for the VPN that’s harder to detect with my credit card which is very easy to detect.

          It’s like FBI trying to ban encryption

          https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/the-fbi-is-secretly-breaking-into-encrypted-devices-were-suing

          Devices are already riddled with backdoors imposed by federal authorities. The only real way to avoid them is to obtain a device not designed or assembled within the NATO block.

          Incidentally, import of these devices has become increasingly difficult, on the grounds that these devices may have backdoors implemented by foreign governments.

          • djsoren19@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            In case you weren’t aware, it’s actually pretty easy to pay for a VPN in unmarked funds. Most will allow for BTC transactions, but some VPNs will even allow you to use giftcards for a place like Target.

            • Alk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Mullvad even lets you send them an envelope with cash in it, with no identifying info other than your account number.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Most will allow for BTC transactions

              This is the dumb guy panacea for committing every financial crime. You’d never even know the block chain is a public ledger.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Devices are already riddled with backdoors imposed by federal authorities. The only real way to avoid them is to obtain a device not designed or assembled within the NATO block.

            this smells distinctly russian for some reason, anyway, just use open source software and hardware, the protection net while not perfect, is entirely open, and theoretically, capable of perfect safety.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              this smells distinctly russian

              Of course, disregard everything Snowden and Assange leaked. Your devices are secure, citizen. Carry on.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                my brother in christ you literally referred to it as the NATO block.

                What makes you think chinese devices don’t have backdoors for example? It’s also likely russian devices do, though idk how many if any they produce. We do know that russian malware often has a russian locale kill switch because apparently they’re a little silly like that.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  What makes you think chinese devices don’t have backdoors for example?

                  Incidentally, import of these devices has become increasingly difficult, on the grounds that these devices may have backdoors implemented by foreign governments.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well,

      a) even the labels and studios pirate stuff that isn’t theirs. They don’t really believe what they preach.

      b) All that content they produce involves unethical treatment of the actual creators and technical staff who are under-compensated, and often lose all rights to their own creative work. and

      c) regional blocks are just marketing bullshit, and is the primary thing VPNs advertise they’ll circumvent for you.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is capitalism 101: whatever makes the most money is what they support. It doesn’t matter who is hurt (or not hurt), or what is right/wrong. As long as they can make more money than they are losing by lawsuits, they will keep doing this. If they can avoid doing anything at all and not get sued while getting paid by customers, that’s even better.

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

      But not before we abolish corporations and capitalism. The very moment you abolish copyright while keeping capitalism, Disney and co will just outright copy and barely modify other people’s work, then start misinformation campaigns that they were the real creators. Considering all the Disney and other brand simps, I don’t think it will lead to them self-destructing due to bad publicity.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        If that were true, Disney and similar companies should be lobbying for the abolition or at least weakening of copyright, which we can tell isn’t the case.

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I won’t argue that corporations wouldn’t steal other people’s work given the chance, but being able to do this is hardly worth the cost of not having copyrights on their own material. A Disney/Pixar/DreamWorks/etc. movie is not a stand-alone product - it’s mainly a feature-length commercial for a franchise. No copyrights means that the corporation doesn’t get revenue from the the merchandise created and sold by third parties.

  • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Absolutely the correct stance, nothing dirty about it. At this point, for better and for worse, the Internet is a basic necessity. Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or Nestle asked your water utility to disconnect your service because you’re drinking free water instead of purchasing theirs. Not a direct correlation but closer.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I was thinking, imagine the media companies demand the power company turn off your power because you downloaded a pirated movie. Or gas stations stop selling gas to you because you speed.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

      gasp!

      I do that ALL THE TIME!!!

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not water baloons, but some companies will cut off your water if you’re sharing it with a neighbor. (especially if that neighbor had their water cut off for not paying a bill)

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Garbage collection services dislike when people throw their garbage in neighbor’s cans even when the neighbor is paying for the larger can (e.g. the disposal volume being used). This has led to some garbage distribution piracy alongside recycling collection crews.

        In case you wanted some cyberpunk dystopia in your cyberpunk dystopia.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Two ways.

            The outer layer is the ad-hoc (often underground or criminal) system that serves to rectify a problem caused by the unjust rules of the legitimate system, in this case, refuse pirates who match overflow to underused capacity.

            The inner layer comes from service to the community becoming punk when the mainstream becomes destructive. When recycling bandits start redistributing garbage they go from being commensal with their neighborhood (causing some noise pollution and some additional mess) to mutualist (providing a service to the neighborhood they scavenge).

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

              I appreciate the explanation, but I don’t think I follow what that has to do with cyberpunk.

              Wikipedia describes cyberpunk as “futuristic technological and scientific achievements, such as artificial intelligence and cyberware, juxtaposed with societal collapse, dystopia or decay”.

              I understand the relation to dystopia, and even your comparison to the punk movement, but I don’t get the cyberpunk comparison, lol

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

          Wow, that’s really odd. My garbage company doesn’t care what I do with my or anyone else’s can. I can even set mine on my side of the street, and as soon as it empties, refill it and move it across the street (there’s like a 15 min gap between them), and they literally don’t care. I also overfill it fairly often, and again, they don’t care. As long as the truck can pick it up and dump it, they’re happy.

          • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            How though? If you’re using extra water to share with your neighbor, and YOU still pay your water bill, they still get extra money for extra usage, right? It just comes from your wallet rather than your neighbors.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            For sure. Even when it isn’t a law the same outcome happens when corporations get the police to enforce their policies.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            We all know implicitly that it’s not illegal to share your water because it’s unethical. It is illegal because making it illegal protects the water company’s profits, humanity be damned.

            it’s perfectly ethical, unless i’m stealing the water, they’re using the same water i’m using and that means i’m paying for it. It’s literally not a problem.

            It might cut flat charges but, get fucked.

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

              I think you misinterpreted, because you two are saying the same thing. It is ethical to share. Therefore, it has not been made illegal for being unethical (because it is ethical), it has been made illegal to protect profits.