Odusei
The response is so overwhelmingly negative because these are communities that exist on all other social media sites. Lemmy.world has gone far beyond any legal requirement (likely because there is no one running this instance with any understanding of the law whatsoever) and kicked people out who were breaking no laws on this site. Of course that’s going to engender a wildly negative response.
Nobody collects statistics on the reasons people break copyright laws for what should be obvious reasons: people don’t want to break laws publicly and go on record as doing it. Those that would are likely to skew data in some way, as they’re the dumb pirates.
Except they've already attempted this against much bigger fries, and lost. The precedence goes the other way.
Right, that’s fair enough - I was describing it as hosting pirated content, but it’s not, it’s “just” linking directly to it. Fair play. I still think the direct links and the communities specifically devoted to linking and education for an illegal activity is way beyond what any instance operator should be required to support on their instance.
Instance operators aren't required to do anything, there are just market forces compelling action in certain directions. For instance you're not required to federate with lemmy.world, but if you intend to be a large public instance supported by donations market forces will compel you to do so in order to attract a larger audience. Is that a distinction without a difference? I guess you'd have to tell me.
I would prefer to minimize it, and make that outcome less likely. Wouldn’t you? Or is that not important to you?
It doesn't really matter. The inevitable GDPR lawsuit that kills all Lemmy instances is fast approaching, and they need to be in a mad dash to prioritize compliance. But since these lawsuits are coming, any large instance hoping to survive needs a legal team right now, not tomorrow, not after they get sued, but now. With such a team in place, the resources needed to defend the claim that no law is being broken in these communities (which lemmy.world doesn't even host, making their exposure even smaller) would be minimal.
- You’re correct that I was wrong about lemmy.world’s servers directly hosting pirated content. That, they’re not doing I don’t think.
- Linking directly to pirated content in a forum specifically for piracy is a step down from that, and also morally and legally wrong. That, they are doing.
- Discussing piracy would be a step down from that, and arguably protected free speech, although also arguably dangerous morally and legally. That they are also doing.
I would argue that an instance admin who doesn’t want any or all of those three things to happen on their instance shouldn’t have to, and no one should give them any shit about it.
This is the internet, everyone is given shit. You are giving me shit, I am giving you shit. The shit is eternal and infinite. You will give and be given shit for the rest of your time on the internet, and so will everyone else. There is no shitless internet as long as you participate.
Whether piracy is morally wrong is a philosophical question, one I doubt you would be willing to participate in in good faith, and one which would take a very long time to discuss. It's certainly not something that can be stated matter-of-factly and as an objective truth. The idea that it is "morally dangerous" to even discuss piracy is what I would call ethically dangerous. All subjects should be able to be discussed.
What is your source for this?
How would I be able to prove this in a way you wouldn't consider to be in violation of your "discussing piracy is morally and legally dangerous" stance?
Can you really not see the irony in saying how much time and difficulty it takes to do these things, and that it’s not sustainable without a model that makes sure that they get paid and they need to be paid because of the time and effort and skill involved to create these things… I tried to highlight the irony and you doubled down on explaining how critical it is for the people involved to get paid 🙂.
Nothing can happen in a capitalist society without a monetary incentive. People need money to live, and that includes the pirates. Whether you find that ironic seems to be incredibly beside the point. All that matters is that these pirates are paid in donations (and sometimes even subscriptions) to continue doing what they do.
In some situations, I can see some merit to this. What percentage of what’s going on on these forums is this? Versus people who e.g. just want a game and don’t want to pay for it? Would you say that an instance operator who doesn’t want to support the latter should have to, because the former exists?
There's that "have to" again. Instance operators don't have to do anything, but market forces compel them to do things or risk killing their instance. Reddit doesn't have to allow free access to their API or give 3rd party apps any means by which to survive, but not doing so has consequences for them ethically and financially. Twitter doesn't have to have a stable CEO who only posts responsible messages and doesn't say and do crazy shit on a regular basis, but there are market forces which compel them to, or face consequences.
As for what percentage of who does what, there's no third party research on that subject. You'll come to conclusions that support your biases, I'll come to the opposite conclusions that support mine, and we'll both give each other shit from the comfort of our custom tailored echo machines. You bring up people who "just want a game and don't want to pay for it," but even that scenario is full of lots of potentially extenuating circumstances. No, I don't want to pay for Mario 64 again because Nintendo thinks I need to pay $60 on their e-shop or whatever. No, I don't want to buy a second copy of a game I already own because I didn't bring it with me. No, I don't want to have to buy four copies of a game to play it once with my four friends in a LAN party. No, I don't want to pay $70 for a new game I can't be sure I'll like, so I'll pirate it first to try it, then make a purchasing decision. And so on and so on.
I mean, I could steal my neighbor’s electricity and that would be a killer service, way better than paying the electric company. Then, I could resell it for less, and it would be a great deal. I feel like you’re deliberately missing the core ironic element I’m trying to highlight here.
Maybe I'm just not interested in irony as an ethical principle by which instance operators should moderate? Your example isn't apples-to-apples, though. Stealing your neighbor's electricity costs your neighbor money, pirating media has no proven financial impact on any media producer. In fact all media industries have only skyrocketed in profitability since the advent of internet piracy.
Here’s a thread where someone is asking “Where can I download this copyrighted thing?” and a bunch of people send him links to where to download it. It took me all of 90 seconds of clicking around on the banned subs to find that.
That is not hosting pirated content.
People have been sued for way less than that, for just in a general sense “allegedly promoting pirating content.”
Lemmy.world will be sued, repeatedly. It is going to happen, most critically because of non-compliance with GDPR, but also because all social media sites get sued regularly.
they weren’t removed on the presumption that they do
The post says, “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.”
Which is exactly what I'm saying, that is not banning the communities on the presumption that they host pirated media.
Source? I’m sure it happens some percent of the time, but my personal observation and limited experience has been roughly 100% obnoxious-ad-supported and roughly 0% “please donate if you use this service” supported.
You're using terrible public trackers that are full of viruses and bait files the media lobbies use to get your ISP to send you threatening emails. I could provide sources, but under the rules you've just outlined that would be a violation of the "never talk about sites that provide access to piracy" rule.
Suffice to say that piracy fundamentally could not and does not survive on ads. It is 99% supported by donations and (at the very tippy top) subscriptions. None of the legitimate sites worth using for this purpose have ads (unless you're really into streaming pirated content instead of downloading it).
Also, can you walk me through the logic behind being willing to pay for content, but not willing to pay the authors, but still being super responsible about making sure you pay your fair share to someone who isn’t the authors to keep the hobby going?
Again, nearly all of piracy exists solely due to donations and subscriptions. People do this as a job, and they cannot run ads without exposing themselves far more than is smart. If you've ever pirated something and seen the name of a release group at the end of the download name like Razor1911, Empress, RiseHD, etc., these are people or groups who do this for a living and are paid for their time by fans (and sometimes very exclusive FTP communities). The knowledge it requires to do some of the things these pirate groups do is highly specialized, and it requires a very sophisticated understanding of programming to do something like crack Denuvo. No one with that skill set is doing it for free (or ad money).
But to walk you through the logic of it, media isn't readily accessible to all people, and certainly not equitably. Some media is banned outright in other countries, some is released after a long delay, some is only sold at exorbitantly high prices out of the reach of the majority of people. These are people willing to pay a reasonable price for the content, but not what's being asked of them. Further, in certain industries like video games, there is next to no incentive or motivation to preserve media to be accessible by future generations outside of what pirates do. If you want to experience any previously released Grand Theft Auto game as it existed when it was released for example, there is no legal way to do that. They've been stripped of their music over time as their licensing contracts expired.
Finally there are people who pay strictly because it's more convenient. Rather than paying for Netflix, Hulu, Max, Disney+, Paramount+, and Apple TV, you can pay one fee to one service and get access to all the content you want, which through methods I won't mention here can be automatically downloaded for you as soon as it's released and made available to any device you want with no action on your part. Pirates deliver a killer service, and some people just want the best service rather than the one that pays the most to studios.
I think comparing a community you aren't a member of (and clearly don't understand) to dogs is the sort of mentality I was hoping Lemmy could be an escape from.
But to reiterate a comment from my last post that you are clearly still not understanding, no piracy occurs in these dbzer0 communities. These are communities where people just discuss the news of the day as it pertains to piracy.
Whatever you're finding by googling piracy is absolutely the sort of stuff that's going to end in you being part of a botnet, though. Good lord is that a crusty and dangerous way to go about it.
Again, there was no pirated content in these communities. None, zilch, nada, zip, zero. If that's what you're going to hang you're entire argument on then you've got nothing at all to complain about, it does not exist there.
Your ABC is basically a non sequitur, nobody was turning lemmy.world (or dbzer0) into a torrent tracker.
All social media has some people who pirate and talk about piracy on them, all of them. That does not make 4chan some special gateway to piracy that facebook, reddit, twitter, etc. aren't also.
There’s nothing 4chan-like about them, or me. I’ve never used 4chan. I just like to research things before condemning them, which I realize can be a rare trait.
Lawsuits are coming to Lemmy, and there’s literally nothing we can do to stop it. All social media is facing the same crisis of liability, and republicans in America are dead set on killing the rules that currently protect them.
Lemmy.world is always at risk of dumb lawsuits for defedirating exploding heads (“silencing conservative voices in social media”), god knows how many asshole patent trolls, plus their huge gaping GDPR non-compliance.
The EU could literally destroy this all tomorrow if they wanted. Driving up the user base, driving up donations, and acquiring their own legal team is the only way any big instance is going to stick around by this time next year.
These communities do not host pirated content, and they weren’t removed on the presumption that they do. They are communities that pirates used to discuss piracy. And yes, as you probably aren’t aware most websites that actually do host pirated content (or torrents to pirated content, let’s not split hairs) are 100% donation based. The communities which most enable piracy are the communities most supported solely through donations. Pirates do a lot of donating to keep their hobby going.
Personally I’d be thrilled to see people who go off half cocked, don’t understand what they’re complaining about, and don’t bother to do any research before making pronouncements about whole communities all leave Lemmy. I don’t need this place to be just like reddit.
Lemmy is not a free service, it is a donation-based service, which is a business model which does benefit from having as many users as possible. The more users you have, the more donors you will have among their ranks. Your conception of social media makes sense for reddit and twitter and similar zero-interest-rate-phenomena websites that get by on idiot VC money, but this business model absolutely depends on satisfying the largest possible percentage of users such that the largest possible fraction will convert to donating.
Big difference between infinite resources and enough room for more of these refugees, no? One is a finite number after all.