BMW should be liable for its drivers not using their turn signals.
Gun companies should be liable for people being shot with their guns
Gun insurance… Should be a thing… It’s the single most compelling thing I have heard someone say about guns and wonder why it wasn’t a thing… Insurance companies don’t fuck around.
It is a thing. Lots of companies do it. Most prominent one I can think of off the top of my head is USAA. But there are others you’ll find (I just hear their ads a lot on the radio)
As far as I know it’s not required like it is to drive a car and it should be… You should be required to have insurance on each firearm that you own.
Nah it’s not required anywhere I have lived.
Yeah that’s what I mean…
This but unironically
Are many guns bought directly from the manufacturer?
If guns had a function besides murder, that would be a bad argument, but they don’t. Defense is just the threat of murder.
Shooting at the range for fun, I suppose, but if people are actually serious about that they’d want to store their guns there because there’s no need for them anywhere else.
The range you speak of is often just the woods, or even a backyard many places. Owned guns for about half my life (35), learned to shoot at 9, and I have never been to a paid range in my life.
That said I saw 2 people open carrying at Kroger just yesterday. Those people are ridiculous. Neither had any strap/cover over the top to prevent someone from easily taking it. I am pro more regulations, but they need to come from a place of understanding of they won’t go anywhere but be turned into propaganda used to drive people into voting conservative. (Even when it’s Trump who said to take the guns first and deal with the process later)
The relationship is different though, BMW is not a service provider.
A better analogy would be the phone company. Is it their job to monitor their customers conversation and determine the legality of what is being said?
I am sure BMW’s TOS has a sentence in there somewhere that they are your daddy once you sign up and this is binding forever. Looks like that means they are a service provider for life.
Also… isn’t a subscription for heated seats means they provide a live service that we need to pay regularly to maintain?
All very true, BMW is a very scummy company lately.
My argument was that primarily, BMW is a manufacturer of a product. It would be a better analogy to a modem company being sued for the content that was transmitted through their device.
Side note, I think the feature unlock trend in cars is the worst possible thing.
That is a better analogy, but critically, phone lines are regulated as Title II common carrier utilities, but internet connections are not.
Given how Trump’s previous FCC pick, Ajit Pai, killed net neutrality, I expect Trump’s new pick, and his SCOTUS to pick whatever benefits Comcast the most.
Not blaming the ISP would give the net neutrality case too much credence. I think Comcast would rather be “required” to do deep packet inspection on all their users to look for “illegal behavior” (among other things).
The Title II difference is a very good point, all analogies fall apart at some point.
I agree the ISPs, like many other companies, will all be courting the new White House to get what they want.
Pres. Obama actually chose Pai. Orange man just chose him as chairman.
nominated to be a commissioner in 2011 by President Barack Obama, who followed tradition in preserving balance on the commission by accepting the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
That explains it…
BMW provides the service of being able to buy and use their product. The service of a gun manufacturer is providing you with a murder weapon (yes, it also can be used for sports). The service of a grocery store is providing you with a place to buy your groceries (and in the US also guns). Why is it different? Whether the product is a connection to the internet or a car, both companies provide a service for money.
As far as the car itself, BMW provides you with a product. This differs from a service where the provider can set in place rules that you need to abide by. If I want to chop the top off my new BMW and install ugly spoiler, there’s nothing that BMW can do about that.
Nothing BMW can do about that, no. But they are also not held liable in case your car breaks in two because you have been cutting through the construction beams ensuring the regidity. Yet it is illegal to do so. But you did anyway, against the advice of BMW. Who is to blame?
There are rules you need to give your car a checkup every year. This is also advices by BMW. Otherwise you risk engine damage or something else. If you don’t, the car company isn’t liable. You are. BMW tells you not to put diesel in your benzine car, but if you do, BMW isn’t liable. There are rules on how to use your car, provided by the car company. BMW even provides you with a lot of safety precautions in case you crash your car, so you will have a better chance of survival, but they do not promote crashing. Yet when you do, you are liable. Not BMW. Also, when you do not pay their subscription service, you won’t get heated car seats etc. in their new cars. Yeah, BMW is switching to subscription plans to activate certain features already installed on your car. How is BMW not providing a “service”? When you do not repair and service your car at BMW you won’t be able to get their road service plan. They advice you to do everything at a BMW dealership, but if you don’t, BMW isn’t liable.
When I have a shop and I have have rules for customers, like no smoking inside and no stealing, yet if someone breaks those rules, am I liable for allowing people in my store?
When an ISP is held liable for people using it for illegal business, ISP’s just aren’t able to exist anymore. They can’t tell if someone downloads illegally when they use a VPN of when they sell drugs on silk road using Tor. Also, a VPN provider who doesn’t log isn’t able to tell either. Why not shut down the internet entirely because some people use it for bad?
Energy providers aren’t held accountable for whenever someone uses its power for their illegal weed plantation right? When I leave open the water tap so there will be a flood and my downstairs neighbors get water damage, is the water company liable? They provided me with a service, they connected me to the water network. So they are responsible for how I use their service?
Americans always search for a scapegoat to blame for things. School shootings? Must be too many doors in schools. Can’t be guns though, “I like guns”. Bad economy? Must be China, can’t be your own choices of course.
The movie Idiocracy was meant to be a comedy, not a tutorial.
No that’s the NSA’s job
No that’s the NSA’s hobby
I could see the Supreme Court rejecting this based on that idea… If you blame the manufacturer, that’s going to open up all manner of gun lawsuits, ammunition lawsuits, etc.
Highways are responsible for car crashes.
The Supreme Court just publicly called for Congress to weigh in on who is responsible?
What is this, solicitation of bribes? Because these big companies are going to try to swing the vote with cash.
What this actually is: They have Verizon bribing them and the MPAA bribing them. They don’t want to shrug either one of them off, so they’ll let the United States citizens make the choice, you know, in good faith in all, so the next 20 years of bullahit they pull that’s against public opinion, They can just point back to this one time
Forced to terminate user who are accused of copyright infringement.
No way that can be abused.
It will be interesting to see them justify why ISPs are responsible for user’s piracy, but gun companies aren’t responsible for users’ murders.
It sounds to me like the founding fathers didn’t mention software piracy because they felt it shouldn’t be regulated by the government.
It’s not in the Constitution so they can’t make a law about it. At least, that’s what all the conservative 2A guys keep yelling at me?
Yeah what the hell are they asking for views for. Their job is to say, this literature does or does not say this can or can’t happen.
Then the legislative branch should be writing what they believe the people they represent want. In reality they will bend it to fit what their lobbyists want, by why on earth is the judicial branch inquiring as to what the people want?
It’s like an admission of guilt to not judging without bias. Thereby all of their judgements would be invalid…
ISPs are companies, the US wouldn’t hold them liable for their own crimes, much less their customer’s…
The blame will just trickle down, so what’s it gonna be, us or them?
Ai isn’t a thing we had in the Napster days. They could jot down all of Mullvad and Nord’s ips and start sniffing. Once gigabytes turn into terabytes within a day, they’ve got a few suspects.
Is it right? Hell no. Would they do it? You bet.
just in case Ars Technica has to remove it someday (perhaps for licensing reaasons? 😭), i am pasting a screenshot here of the excellent image illustrating this article:
I’m sure AWS and Azure would like a word
My ISP sends letters when they know I’m pirating. I tested those waters early.
So, given that proof… they have no idea I’m still pirating, and never stopped.
Maybe content holders should be responsible for enshittifying their services… I shouldn’t have to go to 4 different apps to watch what I want, or try to figure out which service carries an obscure title I like
Love the Stock photo
Fire up the net neutrality comment bots again!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States
For anyone who thinks this is significant or controversial.
They can’t effectively stop Pirates so they want to be able to sue the sea.
