Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn’t be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks.

While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy “would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access.” The legal question presented by the case “is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet,” they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I may not be understanding the logic here. It sounds like your issue is control. You want to have control over media you bought, and you want to have control over AI models rather than just a subscription.

    There are a number of open models. As far as I can see, these are also largely rejected by this community. In lawsuits against their makers, the community also sides against fair use.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        As far as I can tell, this community hates open models just as much as any others. Some seem to hate them even more. That’s the point about this “nightshade” tool.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Perhaps they’re confusing “open model” with “OpenAI” which is more of a misnomer given it’s increasingly cloistered state.

          But I tend to see people angry at the massive waste of resources in the enormous privatized patches of turf. Grok, for instance, fucking up a low income community in Mississippi with it’s fleet of gas generators.