“Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, judges rule.

  • Viking_HippieEnglish
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    What a bizarre stock photo choice too! Someone had a lot of fun with that 😄

    • los_chillEnglish
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      For real. Are they trying to make me NOT want to be that guy, cause

  • conciselyverbose
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    But still declared them liable for the actions of their users.

    Bad ruling, just less bad than it could be.

    • d00phyEnglish
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Next up: Cox bans torrenting traffic and known VPN IP ranges.

    • hoshikarakitaridiaEnglish
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Bizarre ruling that’s for sure.

      In my head, either they are liable and need to pay up (not in my opinion but that would make much more sense) or they are not and need to pay nothing.

      This shit is weird. It’s like accusing someone of helping steal your smartphone and then wanting them buy a pack of Oreos to make it even.

  • kindenough
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Access to internet is a basic human right. Sony doesn’t honor basic human rights when it wants people kicked off internet because money.

  • BatmanEnglish
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Welcome to the Yee Side!.. ARRRRGG!