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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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.

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah IP owners really want to have all the benefits of ownership with none of the drawbacks. After lobbying for and receiving a blank check to be able to rent seek indefinitely, they are constantly acting to outsource any cost of detection and enforcement of “their” property. Disgusting how goddamn entitled they are.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          3 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.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 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
          5
          ·
          3 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
            4
            ·
            3 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
              2
              ·
              3 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.

    • dumbass@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 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.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    3 months ago

    Internet shutoffs should require a court order. Not some emails that are “this person did a bad 🥺🥺🥺 no proof but can you please take our word for it 🥺🥺🥺🥺”

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      3 months ago

      Internet shutoffs shouldn’t be a thing, outside of non-payment or legitimate abuse. If I do something illegal, they should have to sue me, not shut off my internet.

      • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, they don’t disconnect a criminals phone service because they committed a crime and made a phone call. It makes no damned sense.

        • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Only happens as a matter by court order and is a limit on the person not on the corporations. Though if found out after by the court it can be ordered terminated. And you will face further punishment. But this is levied against the person. As in “You are not allowed to do a thing and if we find out you did the thing you will face further punishments.” Corporations should not have the responsibility or ability to determine any ones eligibility. They are a businesses not a government.They are responsible for their own tos and should never be anything more.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Actually, that’s been done several times over the decades. As well as banning computer access. The guy caught hacking into the fbi gets his mouse and keyboard taken away.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you do something illegal, you should be arrested.

        Copyright infringement lawsuits are a far cry from bomb threats or the like.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yeah, I’ve been ticketed for speeding, and that certainly doesn’t come with the threat of arrest unless I’m driving super recklessly or something (but that’s a different offense altogether).

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            So you’re saying copyright infringement is on par with speeding or parking past the meter’s end? Eh, fair enough.

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

              Honestly it is less severe than speeding. Copyright was an invention of the pre-digital era. Now that we all use computers, so many things we do every day are technically copyright infringement that it is absurd to even have these kinds of conversations.

            • Jarix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              I was just pointing out a logical fallacy. It’s literally impossible to do the thing you said.

              This is just facts, they aren’t an opinion

      • oconnordaniel@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe not a court order. But I could get behind a process similar to other utilities where you have months or warning and paperwork.

    • Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t pirate these days, but when I did (and was stupid about it) the emails/letters had pretty exact evidence.

      They included the name of the work, my WAN IP address at the time, and the amount of data transferred (uploaded) out from it.

      This was in the US and I’m unaware of how such notices work in other countries that work similarly.

      • histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s all they can get though they have no proof it was actually you and not someone else using your Internet, how they find out is they join the public trackers and just log everyone in it generally even without a VPN on private trackers they have no idea what you are doing

  • 4lan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 months ago

    I had Verizon threatened to shut down my internet. I had been receiving notices for close to a decade via email, I assumed they were all toothless. And that was true in the past

    I just called the Verizon copyright office and told them that it wasn’t me and I would change my Wi-Fi password 😂

    It was suspiciously easy as if they really don’t care and are just trying to be compliant

    I got a VPN and no longer have to deal with it

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      Heh, the one time (or that series of times) I got “caught pirating” was at university, and the IT dept was super chill about it. They “didn’t know what I was doing”, but we’re concerned about my data usage (managed a couple TBs in a month in the mid 00s) and they slapped my hands for it. Was really fun going ‘I must have gotten a virus’ 5-6 times in a couple months as I dialed in the throttle speeds to a level they were chill with.

      Amazing how the tech students always struggled with viruses 🤔

      • Toes♀@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        I remember discovering that if I plugged my laptop into where an abandoned printer was at my school I would get a full 100megabit pipe. At the time that was incredible.

    • RaccoonBall@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      I feel like most people don’t even check their ISP email anymore. Why use that instead of the Gmail you’ve had for 18 years.

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        No they sent it to my main email, I don’t even know if I have a Verizon email address

    • Majestic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Just FYI. Comments nearly exactly like yours on Reddit were used in copyright troll lawsuits against ISPs as evidence they didn’t do enough to enforce copyright and were negligent and legally liable.

      Further when that didn’t work the copyright agency sued Reddit to try to unmask the identities of those people to bring legal proceedings against them to coerce them into testifying against their ISP at threat of being in trouble for their activities. Reddit was big enough to fight off the lawsuit luckily but be careful.

      • isles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Especially since it specifically highlights porn in a different color, it labeled my VPN IP as “Likes Porn”.

        • modus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Weird… I looked up the IP for my church group’s forum and it said the same thing.

      • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Didn’t find anything from me… Then again I’m using a private tracker, which should insulate me from that. (Random people knowing, the ISP probs does know… But I don’t think they care)

        • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I didn’t find anything from me either. Since I’m using Alldebrid to download torrents. It’s a torrent cache that downloads the torrents to their own server and then you can download directly from those servers at high speed. And most of the time the files are already cached so you can download immediately.

    • figaro@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I use proton VPN for torrenting. It doesn’t show I’ve downloaded anything. I think that means my VPN is working? 😅

  • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 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
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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…

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    Small ISPs have zero interest in enforcing piracy. They don’t want to lose the customers on their highest tiers. Comcast though, they suck

    • Zwiebel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      enforcing piracy

      NOTICE

      YOU HAVE NOT MET YOUR MONTHLY PIRACY QUOTA

      YOU WILL BE TERMINATED,

      THANKS.

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

        This is actually how private trackers operate lol, I got banned from one because I forgot to torrent anything in over 3 months since I was playing a huge game during that time.

        • PolarisFx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          This is why I have a seedbox. A small monthly fee to maintain access to sites that are impossible to join nowadays

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why should ISP lose revenue enforcing laws for another corpos benefit?

    If media industry was serious, they should pay for it 🫢

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      Their game is just to try to make the ISPs liable; they don’t actually want it enforced. In fact, failure to enforce is the feature. They paint the ISP as complicit in the piracy then sue the ISP for hundreds of millions in damages hoping for a no-fault settlement. That’s a much better revenue stream than suing someone for 10k who can’t pay it.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 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
        3
        ·
        3 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
          2
          ·
          3 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
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 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)

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I know you know this but it bears saying explicitly: it’s because pretty much all laws are out there to enforce property first. Humanity is secondary. 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.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 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
              5
              ·
              3 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.

          • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 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.

            • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Because your sharing your water with them disincentivizes their paying their bill.

              Extrapolating on this, if you could legally share your water with the neighborhood couldn’t an enterprising person with a zeriscaped yard sell their water to a thirsty lawned neighbor? That’s money the water company considers theirs

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 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.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 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.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 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
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 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

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 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
      2
      ·
      3 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.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 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.

  • peanutyam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 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
      8
      ·
      3 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.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is less than interesting.

    ISPs don’t want to cut off their income here. I’m certain they have a very good idea of how many of their customers, especially those paying for higher tier plans, are either getting constant DMCA requests, or have a persistent connection to a VPN service. They have a good idea of how much money they’re making from people pirating content, so this position for them is hardly surprising.

    At the same time, I’d rather they fight with the copyright trolls than me. Regardless of the reason for why they’re doing it, it’s a good thing to fight for.

    IMO, they shouldn’t be responsible for this because they’re not tasked with enforcing laws. They must abide by them, and they have a legal, or at least, moral obligation to report any felonies/crimes that they’re aware of (with varying degrees of obligation depending on the severity of the crime. Eg, I’m less bothered if they don’t report, say, piracy, than I would be if they don’t report CP/murder/violent crimes, etc).

    If the LEO’s want a service cut off for a good reason, then let them get a court order for it. They should not be obligated by law to enforce such laws. Any enforcement should be handled by an independent organization, and be filtered through the court system as a check/balance for the whole cabal. They shouldn’t be forced to both find and enforce infractions. Reporting suspected infractions, maybe. Forwarding legal requests to customers, sure (like DMCA notices). Oblige disconnect requests from law enforcement by request (when confirmed necessary by courts in the presence of reasonable evidence), absolutely.

    But having the ISPs do all that themselves with little oversight, is both a danger to their clients, to their liability, and to the public at large, mainly in the context of free speech. The ISP is just the middle man, the messenger. They don’t host the content, nor should they police it, or the access you can get to it. I’m all for collaboration in the interest of enforcing the law, but putting the entire obligation on the ISP seems foolish to me.

    Cyber crimes is one area of law enforcement that I don’t think should be defunded. It may be that ACAB, but those doing the investigative work, away from public interaction (and possible abuse), are not the root of the problem there.

    I dunno, just my opinion man.

    • would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      those doing the investigative work, away from public interaction (and possible abuse), are not the root of the problem there

      They’re the root of privacy problems, which is a non-trivial issue for many of us.

    • SkaBunkel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not sure how real companies handle this, but I can share what we did in a student organization at my university that provided internet to its members.

      Not only could we monitor who was downloading a lot of data, but we also received emails from legal organizations informing us that a specific IP in our network(All members had a public IP) had downloaded copyrighted content. They would ask us to disconnect that user. These emails typically came with an XML file attached, filled with legal information and details about the content being downloaded, often including the exact torrent filename.

      We built a system that would automatically parse the XML and forward the email to the user responsible. The subject line may or may not have been “Use a VPN, you idiot!” at some point.

      We also maintained a “high score” list to track what was trending. The last time I checked, Rick and Morty was in the top 3, but that was a while ago.

    • littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I work for Spectrum. I cannot officially speak for the company, of course, but…We don’t want to be doing this shit, either. We give people 12 strikes. First 4 I just a notice, next 4 is modem quarantine until notice is acknowledged, next 4 we also sent snail mail, with the last one being a 1 year suspension. Anyway, I worked in repair for 5 years. Not a single person at any level gave a crap. Sups, managers, VP’s. “We give them 11 chances to figure out they should use a VPN” was the common attitude. All these warnings and man-hours taking calls and dealing with unblocking modems is a waste of time and money.