"The Supreme Court concluded that ISPs cannot be held secondarily liable for user piracy unless they actively induce or tailor their services for infringement, which means that rightsholders will need an alternative enforcement tool."
Umm because they didn't get what they want your concluding that an additional tool is needed? That makes no sense. There ALREADY exists a tool. They just don't like the tool. These entertainment cartels HAVE NOT GONE UNDER as a result of the internet in the past 25 years so WHY would there be another tool needed???? The fact the supreme court didn't agree that the ISPs were liable is not a reason a new tool is needed given that for more than 25 years ISPs have NOT been liable. This isn't new this is old. It's been the status quo all along. It's not something that has changed. There isn't some new technology your claiming is the reason that a new tool is needed. It's literally the same law of the land as its been interpreted for 25+ years!!! The supreme court just confirmed it because the copyright cartel after 25+ years started to push the claim it wasn't WRONGLY.
Umm because they didn't get what they want your concluding that an additional tool is needed? That makes no sense. There ALREADY exists a tool. They just don't like the tool. These entertainment cartels HAVE NOT GONE UNDER as a result of the internet in the past 25 years so WHY would there be another tool needed???? The fact the supreme court didn't agree that the ISPs were liable is not a reason a new tool is needed given that for more than 25 years ISPs have NOT been liable. This isn't new this is old. It's been the status quo all along. It's not something that has changed. There isn't some new technology your claiming is the reason that a new tool is needed. It's literally the same law of the land as its been interpreted for 25+ years!!! The supreme court just confirmed it because the copyright cartel after 25+ years started to push the claim it wasn't WRONGLY.
1
