One thing that leaps out at me about this ruling is that courts understand the internet a lot better nowadays. A decade or so ago Sony would have probably gotten away with the argument that Cox profited from the users’ piracy; nowadays judges themselves use the internet and are going to go “lolno, they probably would have been Cox customers anyway. It’s not like anyone pays for internet connection solely to pirate. And in most areas people don’t even have a choice of provider, so how is Cox profiting from this?”
Yeah, it’s somehow comparable to a scenario where they had the power to decide you can’t use uber/taxi, or postal services, because you used it to transport the HDD you’re using for your private collection of copyright-protected media.
You’re right, but looking at this analogy backwards tells us the problem isn’t the ability for Uber/ISPs to ban users–this happens and isn’t a problem with Uber-- it’s that Uber, unlike ISPs, doesn’t hold a monopoly on feasible means of transportation. We can’t reasonably expect a business to act outside its own best interests, so it’s insane to allow a business to exist in such a form. Short term, sure, regulate; but really, nationalize it.
At the very least, nationalise the last mile.