Supreme Court wants US input on whether ISPs should be liable for users’ piracy

Gun insurance... Should be a thing... It's the single most compelling thing I have heard someone say about guns and wonder why it wasn't a thing... Insurance companies don't fuck around.

If guns had a function besides murder, that would be a bad argument, but they don't. Defense is just the threat of murder.

Shooting at the range for fun, I suppose, but if people are actually serious about that they'd want to store their guns there because there's no need for them anywhere else.

I am sure BMW's TOS has a sentence in there somewhere that they are your daddy once you sign up and this is binding forever. Looks like that means they are a service provider for life.

Also.. isn't a subscription for heated seats means they provide a live service that we need to pay regularly to maintain?

That is a better analogy, but critically, phone lines are regulated as Title II common carrier utilities, but internet connections are not.

Given how Trump's previous FCC pick, Ajit Pai, killed net neutrality, I expect Trump's new pick, and his SCOTUS to pick whatever benefits Comcast the most.

Not blaming the ISP would give the net neutrality case too much credence. I think Comcast would rather be "required" to do deep packet inspection on all their users to look for "illegal behavior" (among other things).

BMW provides the service of being able to buy and use their product. The service of a gun manufacturer is providing you with a murder weapon (yes, it also can be used for sports). The service of a grocery store is providing you with a place to buy your groceries (and in the US also guns). Why is it different? Whether the product is a connection to the internet or a car, both companies provide a service for money.

No that's the NSA's job