A company "accusing" someone of piracy isn't proof. Access to the internet is almost essential these days. If you can prove a person is pirating prosecute them under the law with fines or even incarceration if warranted. But stripping internet access from someone shouldn't be seen as an acceptable punishment for a free citizen anyway.
Whoever owns the network attached to the IP address also shouldn't be responsible for actions of every user. Let's ban an entire company, college, or government institution from the internet because an IP showed up on a list... dumb ruling.
The 5th circuit includes Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi so they can go fuck themselves. You think I'll live by the opinion of some backwater states? Only a corrupt supreme court would uphold this ruling-ohhh fuckity fuck fuck!
If y'all don't like it, encourage your friends in Texas to fucking vote. This kangaroo court gets to be the reliable Conservative rubber stamp it is, because they're appointed by whatever president is in power when vacancies become available.
Biden was able to appoint two, and Obama appointed two, Clinton one. Bush Jr. appointed four, Reagan appointed two, and Trump appointed fucking six, which explains why they constantly capitulate to big business.
Hey someone's gotta keep the average IQ of a lawyer bell curve balanced. I'm pretty sure the 5th circuit is the equivalent to "Florida Man" in the legal space.
In Canada, I get letters (well emails) when I rawdawg some torrents; but it's never gone further than that.
Prior to using usenet, I constantly torrented w/o a VPN (talking 10+ TB of data across 3ish years) and received a new email notice or two every other day. I've still got a folder with 60+ notices. ISP doesn't give af, they just forward the copyright notice in the form it was sent to them, and that's it.
Now though I primarily use usenet and haven't gotten a notice since. Downloads are also way way more reliable and faster.
The 5th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on damages. Record labels can expect a lower payout because the appeals court said they can't obtain separate damages awards for multiple songs on the same album.