If Cox is liable for user's copyright infringement then Tesla is liable for drivers speeding.

Not if there's a federal law that explicitly declares that middlemen are liable if they don't comply with the DMCA process, while there isn't a federal law saying car manufacturers are liable for speeding.

You might be looking at the underlying principles and making common sense value judgements, instead of reading what the law says.

This is ultimately why politics exists: to influence what the law is, in an attempt to make it more like your common sense value judgements. And it's really hard because these are issues that your congressional candidates probably aren't talking about at all, because they're talking about someone else's "important" [eyeroll] issues instead. We needed to stop DMCA in 1997/1998 and we failed.

The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement

However regrettable, it's easy to understand how that can happen.

The jury could have just been told testimony that "we saw xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was seeding our movie" (with screenshots of MPAA's torrent client showing a seeder at that address and the packets they got from that address correctly matching the torrent's checksum). Meanwhile, Cox wouldn't have any evidence refuting it (even though the assertion isn't proven; the "screenshots" could have been made in GIMP for all we know). And then the jury might have ruled based on "preponderance" of evidence.

Kind of like 3 cops saying "the perp resisted arrest" and the perp saying "no I didn't" and a criminal jury (where the bar is much higher) still deciding that the perp resisted arrest. Sigh. You know that happens.

Had Cox ratted their customer out (or gotten a DMCA counternotice from them), then the customer could have been sued instead, and raised doubts by saying "I have an open wifi" or something like that. But Cox didn't, and they certainly aren't going to say "we have an open wifi" since they're in the network business so of course they don't offer free networking to strangers. It sounds like a difficult situation for Cox.

The story is light on details so I ass/u/me some things. The copyright infringement was likely due to torrents, i.e. from the internet's point of view, addresses owned by Cox were publishing/hosting content (under the hood: really Cox's customers seeding torrents).

So if I were an MPAA/RIAA -member company, I'd send Cox a DMCA notice ("Cox, stop sharing my copyrighted work") which really means "Cut that customer off or otherwise make them stop, or else get a DMCA counternotice from them, so I can go after them instead of you." And if that's what happened, then it sounds like Cox said no (didn't make it stop and also didn't pass the buck to their customers. So they sued Cox instead of Cox's customers.

But that's based on assumptions and speculation, hence my question. But yes, I know what a DMCA notice is and I think that mechanism was likely in involved at some point in the story.

It's unclear from the articles whether or not this happened: did the record labels send DMCA notices to Cox, which Cox blew off (thereby becoming liable in place of the original suspected infringer)? Or did the record labels just sue 'em first?

Prior to 1998 they wouldn't have been liable (just like Western Digital and Seagate aren't liable for whatever I may be suspected of doing) but DMCA makes hosting services (and networks? hmm...) a special case, unlike power utilities, computer equipment manufacturers, etc.

There is a critical mass of Teslas that aren't smart enough to be driving either. See "The final 11 seconds of a fatal Tesla Autopilot crash":
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Most drivers only drive poorly in certain sections of the drive. The question is whether what Tesla is doing helps or hinders poor driving.

Quoting the Heritage foundation when saying something is propaganda and a lie is hysterical as they are a massive propaganda outlet. So is Forbes. Only the IMF foundation has any credibility at all.

But this is an old dead conversation at this point.

However, remember it in 20 years when the temperature is +2.7C and we start having global food insecurity even in first world countries while the Billionaires you are stooging for live well and you suffer.

No... maybe at one point... but today? It's just excess profits for billionaires and corporations and a few cheap products that incent exactly the opposite behavior that we need-- such as $2.39 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. this year when it was still about $7 per gallon in the rest of the world.

Many of us on this website dream of a day when humans no longer have to perform backbreaking or mind-numbing labor. Our spirits are assaulted whenever we hear politicians hatefully brag about how they will create more jobs instead of leading us toward the Star Trekkian paradise of less soul-crushing or injurious toil.

I thought Amazon was one of the few good guys, working to help create a world of 100% unemployment. I know it's only an ideal to strive for (we'll likely never free everyone from having to work) but they seemed to be trying.

How many times have we been promised "I'll replace you with a script" or "AI is coming for your job?" Empty words. Lies. To find out they were secretly saddling innocent humans with computers' jobs, is an insult to both of our races.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim these anecdotes mean computers suck.

These computers which initially worked and then turned against their owners all had one thing in common: they run proprietary software, made to serve the manufacturer's interests at the expense of the owners' interests.

So stop saying "smart devices are bad." The obvious conclusion is that "proprietary smart devices are bad."

Or were you really just trying to derail the conversation about potentially addressing the climate change to give us a chance of limiting the increase to about +2C.

But it's clear to many of us that +3C is really on the table. There will be enough carbon put out by 2049 to ensure that.

Right now, there is enough carbon in the air already to get us to +2.15C. It's just going to take some time- like water on the pot takes time to boil when you put heat under it.

My info in the post above was out of date...
See the Reuters article:
"Total spending on fuel subsidies topped $7 trillion in 2022, IMF says"
By Libby George
August 24, 20238:06 AM CDT

However, the cost of carbon capture probably has increased too, so it's a red queen's race and likely costs $21 trillion now.

But note the aggressive down-modding and censorship...

It's clear things are going to get really bad and people will *STILL* be in denial then.

Actually... My info was out of date.

See the IMF article, "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion
Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change
Simon Black, Ian Parry, Nate Vernon
August 24, 2023"

However the carbon capture cost has probably increased since I swagged it 18 months ago when the first carbon capture plant articles started circulating.

See the IMF article,
"Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion
Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change
Simon Black, Ian Parry, Nate Vernon
August 24, 2023"

And I didn't say it was all U.S. subsidies but ... the U.S. collects a *lot* less due to crazy friendly tax treatment for coal fields.
Not collecting a tax from an industry that other industries pay is a subsidy. It's just hidden.

Oh.. I'm sorry, I was mistaken...

It's 7 trillion now.

See the IMF article

"Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion
Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change
Simon Black, Ian Parry, Nate Vernon
August 24, 2023"

How many died?

On review, I actually cared more about the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who *died* in that war which you apparently don't care about at all because gender is more important than life or death to you apparently.

But if you are going tangentially point out women fought to my post- how about you doing us a favor and posting about those women who died (if any) in the gulf war.