I used to work for a water company in an admin role and one of the things that I learned was we can't actually cut people's water off because it's a safety issue and a human right to have access to water at all times. If people didn't pay their bills all that really happened was they got threatening letters but nothing ever actually happened to their water supply.

Also cutting off water is a pain because you have to physically send an engineer out to go do it you can't do it remotely. At least not in 2011 when I last worked there.

[–] kindenough@kbin.earth 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I have the basic right for a roof over my head but doesn't mean I don't have to pay my rent. If I get thrown out of my house I still have basic rights, including food, water, clothing, housing, medical care and other necessary social services, including internet access as it is required to have interaction with government social services.

Water will only stay connected if it has medical emergency, otherwise it will be disconnected when bills are not paid and no reaction from the customer. One can ask for water containers before disconnection. Water company's are required to give each person in the household a minimum of 3 liters per day for 4 days. Government will intermediate between company and customer for re-connection through a debt counselling program.

That's how basic rights work over here.

Edit: added "per day".

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Next, Google will sue Comcast because they allow users to watch YouTube videos over Newpipe.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

NewPipe is legal though

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Potato/tomato.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I guess they did DMCA source code for legal software (youtube-dl). But long live yt-dlp

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

At the end of the day, all these huge tech firms have left is to try and fuck with the people that know better and are looking to get off from under their thumb. Google is going to keep trying to break every workaround we use, so will Microsoft, Meta, Apple and every single ad-ridden and anti-privacy company out there.

However, just look around. People are waking up. The Lemmy communities just keep growing, more and more people are eliminating their mainstream social media and Google accounts. That fuck-up on Friday worldwide will have many companies reevaluating if it's worth it to remain on Windows. In short, the internet revolution has already started, and it will hit critical mass at some point (5 years, 10 years, hard to tell).

This is the reason why so many companies are lobbying (which I see just as a pretty word for bribing) to scan before encryption and making it law. They know their golden egg goose is finally dying.

I finally got all my family and friends on Simplex, and they in turn are getting their friends onto it as well. I'm very happy with what I'm seeing.

[–] electricprism@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Someone should sue the Roads Company for not stopping speeding and exchange of mp3 CDs.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Major record labels sued Verizon on Friday, alleging that the Internet service provider violated copyright law by continuing to serve customers accused of pirating music.

They say that "Verizon has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by tens of thousands of its subscribers."

Cox received support from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which warned that the big money judgment could cause broadband providers to disconnect people from the Internet based only on accusations of copyright infringement.

While judges in the Cox case reversed a vicarious liability verdict, they affirmed the jury's additional finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.

"Yet rather than taking any steps to address its customers' illegal use of its network, Verizon deliberately chose to ignore Plaintiffs' notices, willfully blinding itself to that information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations."

The lawsuit also complains that Verizon hasn't made it easier for copyright owners to file complaints about Internet users:

The original article contains 850 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!