this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
729 points (97.8% liked)

Games

32949 readers
805 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's not even in their calculation for most of their customers. They aren't going to eat a court case if they don't have to and every refusal risks a court case. A customer has to be truly large to actually be defended by their ISP.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They wouldn't get a court case over this. Firstly because registrars are not responsible for the content on their websites, And social media sites and other sites that allow users to post-content to them are themselves not directly responsible for the content users choose to post.

The appropriate action for a registrar is to contact the owner of the website in question, If it is getting close to the allotted time and they haven't had a response then they take the website down. All allowable under the law without getting sued.

This registrar didn't even bother trying to contact the site, they did not do a totally automatable and essentially free action, simply because they couldn't be bothered.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

In the US record companies are busy making everyone responsible via court cases. That's the problem.