Sony v Cox: Cox not liable for copyright infringement
(www.scotusblog.com)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
An opinion so obvious it makes you wonder how it managed to get this far.
Hilariously, the two dizzy cunts on the court had to disagree, and write a baffling separate opinion, to hold the door open for contributory infringement later.
Clearly they got the memo. They want to be able to hold your ISP liable for any "crime" you commit, not because it matters, but because it will force ISPs to start filtering and restricting content on your behalf.
Two steps forward, one step back. Oh well.
ISPs have filtered already: Kiwifarms is unreachable via Cogent, I think it is, and they are a peering provider for ISPs.
Sure, that's the precedent, probably under the pretext of doxxing or the like (not every site is Kiwifarms, after all). Now they need to open the door all the way so they can go after anyone for any reason.
Bribery and the leftists want total internet control so they ordered their minion "judges" to toe the line.
It's just as absurd as holding the telephone company responsible if two criminals plan to rob a bank over the phone, eh?
I am still waiting for the Palworld vs Nintendo fight.
That's in 5 years minimum lol
Surely payment processors should chill and not police what we buy with our money, right??? Since ISPs are like payment processors.
Of course not. You can still use cash which those payment processors make it increasingly difficult to use, so the payment processors can engage in as much censorship as they want.
This is how most of our freedoms have been laundered away. Freedom of movement but the airlines can put you on a list for not wearing a useless mask. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure so they have Israel spy on you instead. Freedom of speech but force transactions to go through private companies and use them to censor.