this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
937 points (99.3% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55076 readers
436 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

!piracy@lemmy.ml has also been blocked from lemmy.world.

edit:

Lemmy.world has released an official response.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thedrizzle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Each instance owner is running these instances themselves, presumably out of the home, for free.

They could go after an instance owner, sure, but

There's no "but". They could fight a lawsuit, sure, but that's time consuming and expensive, and why bother? The piracy isn't coming from their instance, why should they have to fight a lawsuit for it? Piracy has its own instance, nothing has been defederated, they're just not hosting the content on their server to save themselves the hassle down the road. I can't imagine they'll be the only one.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They won't really have to fight a lawsuit because it would just be thrown out if a company tried to file one.

At worst they'd just get DMCA take down requests.

[–] planish@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lawsuits don't generally just throw themselves out. You have to pay a lawyer to show up and ask the judge to throw out the lawsuit on account of the fact that you don't host the thing, or whatever the reason is.

Judges don't go out and do research; if one side's lawyer says Whirlybird runs The Pirate Bay out of their kitchen and the other side's lawyer isn't there, then the court is going to proceed as though that is at least plausible.

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

So many laws work like this too, it makes them worthless if personal wealth is required to get them enforced. If Section 230 only exists for the wealthy and corporations, the fediverse isn't gonna get very far

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have to pay a lawyer to show up and ask the judge to throw out the lawsuit on account of the fact that you don’t host the thing, or whatever the reason is.

You don't have to pay a lawyer, you can do it yourself.

[–] planish@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

True. But then you have to physically show up wherever, and know how to do it right.

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Sure, but doesn't it suck that it doesn't matter what the law says? Do you think it'll ever change if everyone rolls over and isolates undesirable communities (think beyond piracy to other things like adult content, or content from marginalised groups)