• yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just do what we do in Canada. Send them threatening letters. It scares 90% of parents into telling their kids to knock that shit off, but they’re toothless and can’t actually do anything, and the remaining 10% still pirate away. Everyone’s happy.

    • peteyestee@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Get to the point that you don’t want their products. Consuming their stuff at all is like sporting brand name cloths and covering the logo.

      Once you do this you will find you don’t need most of it and it’s just a waste of time anyway. The stuff that is authentic and that you genuinely need you can support.

      It’s honestly like quitting drugs.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not a judge, but isn’t internet essentially a utility these days? Cutting someone off because of piracy seems like cutting off electricity or water because they did something illegal with it.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Net neutrality is why your online jokes were censored under Biden

        – John McRacist, Republican congressman, former CFO of Evil Inc., former lawyer of Vile Ltd., member of Christofascism Society and Roman Salutes to Jesus

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m some places in the States they will cut off your electricity or water for sharing with a neighbor that has had theirs shut off. I have seen both happen personally, and not in some back water state. They both happened in upstate NY.

    • SillyDude@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Inb4 palantir cuts off your electric and water because you had 15% eye distraction during the mandatory 3hr nightly fox news viewing.

    • JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a United Statesian so I have no clue anymore how it works there, but other places have been making the case that the Internet is an essential service and that access to it is a basic right. So to leapfrog off your question, is that like a poor person stealing a loaf of bread being cut off from food because they didn’t food responsibly enough?

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don’t have a right to electricity, or even water. They’ll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.

        • jumping redditor [they/them]@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          to be fair the treaty never specified anything about water, and the Navajo nations should have had better lawyers or better guerilla warfare tactics if they wanted more negotiating power.

        • tomenzgg@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Besides your point but this is the aspect about Gorsuch that I can’t seem to make internally consistent. He almost always rules in terms of native rights – even when, I think, it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle – yet is more than happy to rule as a conservative on all other times and support “industry” and big business (even when it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle).

          I know that nothing necessitates a person to act logically and most act from emotion, more than anything, but most people, I find, have a relative reason they think they’re being logically consistent but I can’t seem to suss even that out, with regards to him.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pragmatically, yes. Legally, no. Progressives have been fighting for years to get internet classified as a utility in the US, and regressives and (ironically) internet companies have been fighting against that effort at every turn in the name of profit.

      And now look how well that’s turned out. Gee, if only some people had warned them that deregulation was a monkey’s paw…

    • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is actually why I usually install a VPS in whichever country I’m physically in—my end devices always appear to be connecting to something innocent in-country (like a corporate VPN). That VPS then does the double-hop out of the country so that the VPS also seems pretty innocent too.

      I don’t think it’s actually more secure though since the VPS is in my name and it’s technically decrypting everything. But I’m a bit less paranoid about that. (I’m not doing tons of illegal shit anyway.)

      • Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Look at it this way. Who would you rather risk pissing off, your ISP or a VSP Hosting company?

        put the qbittorrent-wireguard container on the vps.

  • obsidianfoxxy7870@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The unproven claims is the key part here. Also the point of “terminating an account would punish every user in a household” is important as well.

    You can fine someone for piracy if you want. As long as they have the standard legal protections. But cutting access is excessive.

  • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if Meta is convicted of pirating books for AI training, they lose all internet connectivity? 🧐

  • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What about legitimate torrented content? Are they going to outlaw the technology outright? Don’t plenty of legitimate downloads use torrents to speed up software updates and such?

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The mere accusation causing someone to lose the Internet, which is vital to modern life, would be insane.

    Additionally, it would do little to nothing to stop piracy.

    • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      they actually do think that if you stop piracy people will flock back to streaming services when in reality all that will happen is i’ll just watch more twitch.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You wouldn’t be able to access twitch. You’d have to buy cable TV or an antenna for the free channels. Either way media wins via commercials.

        • flandish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          i imagine you in a mcdonalds with an 80’s era easy bake oven plugged into an outlet in a booth with a sign saying “free cookies.”

        • kevincox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then they’ll lobby against public WiFi. I was in China recently and (depending on the province) you need a phone number to access public WiFi so that they know who you are.

          • ManOMorphos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hope that this doesn’t come to the US. Even now, a lot of the available Wifi hotspots are from cable companies (which require their account logins, so they definitely will know who you are).

            Would giving a throwaway VOIP number that’s untraceable to someone fool that kind of service, I wonder? Unless caught right away, they would probably have to get their identity on an individual basis.

            • kevincox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              In China there is no such thing as a throwaway number (at least outside of black markets). All numbers require ID to acquire.

              For the US it would be a bit different. VOIP numbers do exist but they are often also blocked by services (this isn’t black and white but there are services that will quite accurately map numbers into ranges like home/cell/business/VoIP).

              But of course the assumption would be that if they start requiring phone numbers for WiFi access the logical next step would be to make all numbers traceable to humans.