Removal of piracy communities
Removal of piracy communities
Earlier, after review, we blocked and removed several communities that were providing assistance to access copyrighted/pirated material, which is currently not allowed per Rule #1 of our Code of Conduct. The communities that were removed due to this decision were:
We took this action to protect lemmy.world, lemmy.world's users, and lemmy.world staff as the material posted in those communities could be problematic for us, because of potential legal issues around copyrighted material and services that provide access to or assistance in obtaining it.
This decision is about liability and does not mean we are otherwise hostile to any of these communities or their users. As the Lemmyverse grows and instances get big, precautions may happen. We will keep monitoring the situation closely, and if in the future we deem it safe, we would gladly reallow these communities.
The discussions that have happened in various threads on Lemmy make it very clear that removing the communites before we announced our intent to remove them is not the level of transparency the community expects, and that as stewards of this community we need to be extremely transparent before we do this again in the future as well as make sure that we get feedback around what the planned changes are, because lemmy.world is yours as much as it is ours.
You're viewing a single thread.
What surprises me is that people think making a community specifically for illegal activity isn't a problem, and that they should only be called on their behaviour when a copyright holder notices them. There are plenty of places to go for piracy online, so what's the need to add a community for it here? Or are you people claiming a piracy community wasn't primarily intended for piracy?
Do you think discussing piracy is illegal?
You're kidding nobody.
I'm not trying to kid anyone. It was a simple question. I assume your reluctance to answer is because you agree that simply discussing piracy isn't illegal.
So, absent some evidence that the communities in question ignored their own rules against links to infringing content, do you think it was appropriate to block them? Keep in mind, that if this did exist, and it was clear that the rule was just there for lip service but unenforced, the admin would have a pretty good rationale for blocking the communities-- however, I'd still prefer that the blocking be after dialog had happened in an attempt to resolve the situation.
Okay, I'll bite. I don't think discussing piracy is illegal, but sharing links to pirated content and teaching others how to break the law is borderline illegal.
If you can prove to me that nothing like this ever happened in those communities though, I'll agree that their removal was harsh. From what you're insinuating, it sounds like they were just a bunch of people sitting around talking about piracy and how great it is, without ever going into specifics.
prove to me that nothing like this ever happened in those communities though
Is that the bar you use? If I post a link to some infringing content in this thread, should this community be banned?
Would you like to reconsider this stance?
My point, which you seem to have gleefully glossed over is that those communities were made specifically to partake in illegal activities. If you share links to piracy elsewhere, your comments will get deleted and you'll likely be banned.
I can't help but point out that downloading isn't even illegal everywhere. Should they likewise ban communities around marijuana or, I dunno, loud cars?
And yes, that's exactly how it should work. Specific instances of rule violations should be dealt with, and if (and only if) it continues to be a problem because the piracy mods aren't doing their job, then blocking makes sense. The LW admins did this all backward.
That's not how any of this works, you'd think someone so interested in piracy might be a bit more technically competent regarding how the fediverse runs.
Each instance pulls data from every federated instance and every unblocked community in those federated instances. This means that any data that is hosted in those communities ends up being hosted by every linked instance.
If an instance in run in the US for example, there's nothing stopping the media companies from going after the instance owner for spreading access pirated material even if they don't explicitly host it because the data is on their instance.
The piracy instances can get away with this because they are hosted and moderated in accordance to the laws of the country they are hosted in which may not be congruent with the laws where other instances are hosted.
No big government or corporation is likely to come after an American hosted site for weed, or cars, because those things are socially and legally accessible in that country, but pirated media isn't.
Not to mention that none of these instances have massive funding and even frivolous lawsuits could shut them down.
What led you to believe I'm interested in piracy? Double check your assumptions. I'm interested in rational moderation and intellectual property laws.
The law is pretty much settled on this, there is no real danger of some surprise lawsuit; that's not how the copyright system has worked for decades, now. They'll get a notice first, for a specific instance of copyright infringement, and they'll take it down. If that really is their concern (and I do not believe it is really their concern) then it's unfounded and they can unblock these communities as they suggest they will do in the post.
And to be clear, there was no given example of these communities not adhering to their own rule of not linking to infringing material. So the "omg it's cached here" argument is weak even if copyright holder behaved as you are imagining, which they do not.
No big government or corporation is likely to come after an American hosted site for weed, or cars, because those things are socially and legally accessible in that country, but pirated media isn't.
I don't know what this means. Do you mind elaborating or rephrasing?
Simply "discussing" child pornography is fine too? I agree with the previous responde: you're not fooling anyone with the flawed argument you hide behind.
What flawed argument are you referring to? The admins of this site claimed they had to block those communities for fear of legal repercussions. If we all agree that discussing piracy isn't illegal, and there's no examples of them breaking their own rules against linking to infringing content, then from where is the danger of a lawsuit coming from? It makes no sense and feels much more like an excuse that was concocted after-the-fact to rationalize it.
Simply “discussing” child pornography is fine too?
You just compared Piracy and CSAM... didn't you... 🤦♀️
FYI for those who don't know this is called a strawman argument, they're often used by people who don't have a valid point to make or aren't capable of formulating a reasonable counterargument because they can derail the conversation and change the argument.
In this case comparing Piracy and CSAM doesnb't make sense because they are extremely different types of crimes and also differ greatly in severity. CSAM is much more severe than Piracy in any form, because it is sexual abuse material or depictions of children (either real or fabricated) it is a very heinous and awful crime. It represents significant irrevocable harm to a person either physically, emotionally, or many times both.
Piracy on the other hand is infringing on someone's copyright, it is a civil matter and even in cases of large commercial piracy it is still not seen in the same light as something as despicable as CSAM, some might argue that it could cause significant monetary damage, but even that is nowhere near as awful as the damage CSAM causes and has caused to people. It's honestly so terrible that the fact that you would try to use it as a gotcha to win a this petty piracy debate is honestly disgusting, it shows that you are a disgusting person who doesn't understand how severe of a crime or accusation that is.