Ah yes, another episode of Big Copyright vs. Common Sense. On one hand, you’ve got the recording industry treating ISPs like unpaid content police, demanding they nuke users’ internet access over allegations (not proof—just allegations) of piracy. On the other, you have ISPs whining about “crushing liability” while charging exorbitant fees for mediocre service. Hard to pick a hero here.

Grande’s point about the lack of clear guidelines is fair, though. The DMCA’s “repeat infringer” concept is a mess—there’s no defined threshold, no guarantee users can defend themselves, and ISPs are stuck guessing how aggressive they need to be to avoid lawsuits. Do they ban users after two accusations? Ten? A thousand? And who verifies these claims when DMCA notices are * notoriously* abused?

The cherry on top? The Twitter v. Taamneh ruling basically told platforms they don’t have to deplatform users just because their service was misused. Seems like ISPs should get the same treatment—providing internet access shouldn’t make them responsible for everything their customers do, just like Verizon isn’t liable if someone robs a bank using their phone network.

This case could be a big deal if SCOTUS takes it up. Either we get actual legal clarity, or we continue letting industry giants duke it out while regular users live in fear of getting their WiFi cut off because grandma clicked the wrong totally legal YouTube-to-MP3 converter.