this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
35 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54500 readers
627 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 |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It will likely depend on how popular Lemmy becomes as well as the server physical location \ DNS registry that of used.
Having a piracy channel on an instance located in a country that does not recognize intellectual property, and a DNS registration in a TLD that doesn't respond to piracy complaints should be pretty bullet proof. Only thing that companies could do at that point would be to try to get a court order to have the DNS entry blocked by US \ EU \ etc DNS providers, or a court order for ISPs blocking the server IP address. These could be easily circumvented by changing the server IP if it happens and updating the DNS.
Would every instance federated with the piracy instance be at risk as well? Like how facebook or reddit would be for user uploaded content in some jurisdictions
There are many variables that makes a yes no answer impossible. Currently there are too many instances for a lawsuit to be brought to each. The instances are in different countries, do different laws would have to be navigated for each. For example, in the US, Google has like to piracy websites. Google doesn't allow housing of piracy on their platform. Google does some removal of listings but it is but exhaustive.
Google is not being held liable, and I bet if an instance happens to cache piracy content due to a user interacting with another insurance, Google and ISPs would be interested in helping that instance so president isn't set that creates liability for traffic that happens to traverse servers, if it is but being served by the server.
This is a very ELI5, and isn't a full discussion of all the variables. A difficult question even limited to one country's laws.
Realistically, the while point of a federation us to make it impossible to shut down, or censor world wide, the community as there are simply too many different servers. This works against corporate attacks as well as legal.
Yeah I'd guess that such an instance would be on a lot of Blocklists very soon since pretty much everyone hosting instances is doing it as a volunteer and not as a job so noone wants to have this kind of legal trouble as a possibility
Plus its no harm to discuss it and links can be added in base64 or hidden in images so you could just post an image of a game with the link hidden inside. Then users just download the image and run a command to extract the link.
One such tool is called steghide. That way there is no takedown as there is no link in a search engine so its not found. steghide should be in your distro's repository. I'm sure there is probably some windows version too