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.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate
    link
    301 year ago

    I’m no fan of piracy - just seems like a pretty name for petty theft to me - but this decision seems problematic. I went and read some of the threads about this decision on some of the other communities, including dbzer0, and I looked around the blocked communities on an alt account.

    I’m not seeing evidence of actual copyrighted material posted, just discussions about how to steal content, which itself isn’t illegal. And there’s a pretty fair amount of content - the communities are active - so if there was a violation I feel like it should be handled as the exception it appears to be. Those communities themselves don’t allow posting of copyrighted content, so it shouldn’t be a problem to get a violation removed. If someone posted an image that contained child pornography to one of the NSFW communities, would we block the whole community, or just get that post removed (and alert the authorities)? The latter, I hope.

    They also make a good case that the action was taken in response to a troll on a newly-created account who didn’t provide any evidence of there being copyrighted material. That in itself seems like a problem, though maybe someone looked into it? I’m pretty supportive of the .World admins, I think you’re doing a good job in a difficult situation, but I believe these communities should be unblocked unless there is an actual problem.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      34
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yarr harr, tis incorrect sez me

      Theft be taking somefing, I has it and you don’t

      You savu?

      Copying be making another thing from a thing

      • @foggy
        link
        -21 year ago

        Excuse me sir may I borrow a tomato seed? I’ll give you one back in a few months, promise!

        • @M0oP0o
          link
          71 year ago

          Yeah but in this case you still keep your seed, but now I also have that seed… MAGIC!

        • Bubonic [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not a good analogy, you are still depriving them of a seed for a period of time. Something more accurate would be “Excuse me sir, may I take pictures of your successful tomato grow op so I can do the same thing at home in my own grow to feed my family.”

        • AFK BRB Chocolate
          link
          -51 year ago

          Let’s say we live in a world where anyone is allowed to copy anything without issue or cost. Patents are now meaningless because people can copy an invention and make their own version, so there’s no incentive for anyone do the entrepreneur thing or invent new devices. There’s no reason for musicians to record anything other than maybe to drum up interest in their tours. No reason for digital artists to put things online. No writer is going to allow their work to be published as an ebook. Etc.

          The costs to make things don’t change and the profit targets don’t change, so the people who do this are just causing higher prices for the prior who don’t, in exactly the same way as stores raise their prices to cover the costs of shoplifting.

          • @foggy
            link
            61 year ago

            Holy assumptions, batman!

              • @foggy
                link
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The one where artists create art for financial gain.

                That’s fucking hilarious. I don’t know how uncreative and unartistic you must be to hold such a view, but… “The starving artist” isn’t on a hunger strike. They’re dirt poor.

                This key ideological crux of your argument leads me to believe you are so disconnected from creating art that I cannot bother myself to engage in a discussion with you about the nuances of intellectual property and if it even should exist at all. You’re just blowing hot air around, and I’m not here for it. Neither is anyone else, it seems. So, cheers. I’m sure you’ll say something, and I’m sure it will further illustrate your disconnection to this argument, so I probably won’t respond.

                • AFK BRB Chocolate
                  link
                  -31 year ago

                  Way to blow off an opinion your disagree with by making incorrect assumptions. I actually grew up around artists and musicians and am close friends now with a cartoon illustrator and a professional musician.

                  So now do you want to tell me why my opinion is wrong?

                  • @foggy
                    link
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    lol ok

                    Your opinion is very, very wrong.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago
            1. You baselessly assume patents are the same as allowing copying content for personal use
            2. If money is the only reason for someone to make content, then we are better off without it
            3. If a company changes prices and loses customers, it is entirely their problem, not the customers’. It’s the definition of free market
            • AFK BRB Chocolate
              link
              -31 year ago
              1. I didn’t make any such assumption, I’m just saying if anyone can copy anything then copyrights and patents are meaningless. It follows from my hypothetical.
              2. The vast, vast majority of all content is made for financial gain. How many movies do you think would get made if people couldn’t get paid for it. There’s a lot of costs to just break even considering location rentals, shooting permits, craft and food costs, etc. All the people involved do it to make a living. How much content would there be if it was only donated time and materials?
              3. I have two big problems with this. For one, I didn’t say they were losing customers, I said the paying customers are subsidizing the costs of the thefts. Secondly, how can you possibly blame a store for raising prices to cover the costs of thefts? Should they just operate at a loss? How do they pay their employees?

              Again, lots of rationalizations for taking stuff without paying. Can I ask you what you do for a living and if you think whatever product or service it is should be provided by you for free?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                51 year ago
                1. If you only care about quantity, then sure, go ahead
                2. Then it’s the customers’ fault for still choosing this provider and paying more

                For a living, I mostly write software and do research in mathematics, and yes it should be free. I don’t necessarily say that there should not be an option to pay for using it for business purposes, but in my opinion it should always be possible to easily and legally get it for personal use. I cannot share the code directly due to NDA’s, but it still should be public and accessible for any physical persons.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  51 year ago

                  And an important thing I forgot to mention: you assume that piracy is some invisible force that makes customers not buy the product and inflicts purely theoretical losses to the company, while in reality the vast majority of pirates would not buy the product anyways, and some (like me) have bought hundreds of e.g. games, just because they liked the pirates version. Some studies have shown that piracy has a positive net influence on the number of sold copies. Saying that piracy loses sales is just a stupid rhetoric used by greedy callous companies to raise prices even more, though the product does not change.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    51 year ago

                    I do, but do note that all public research is funded somehow, though importantly it is public, so free to access. This is my idea of how all research should be conducted.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate
        link
        -61 year ago

        I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that definition of theft. Hell, we call it “stolen valor” when someone purports to have served in the military when they haven’t. It’s" identity theft" if you pass yourself off as me, even though I’m still me. I think this is yet another rationalization for taking something that doesn’t belong to you without paying.

    • @ttmrichter
      link
      English
      51 year ago

      I’m no fan of piracy - just seems like a pretty name for petty theft to me …

      I’m sorry you’re ignorant of the issue.

      For starters, piracy is not theft in most legal jurisdictions. It is infringement. These are different words in laws for a reason. Saying it’s “theft” is falling for a PR campaign made by parties with a vested interest in that interpretation being in the public consciousness.

      Next, a lot of piracy (I’m not going to comment on what proportion because I lack the numbers … and so does literally everybody else because of the underground nature of this!) is of material that is simply not available through any other means to the people doing said piracy. I, for example, freely admit to piracy … of things that I simply cannot buy where I am. There are literally zero avenues for me to purchase the things I pirate, so I pirate. There are, similarly, things which have been out of print, out of production, or otherwise unavailable anywhere in the world for ages that get pirated. (I don’t pirate enough of these to say this is a primary motivation for me.)

      Finally, there is some piracy that is actually directly virtuous. For example the people who pirate secret docs that reveal the illegal, immoral, or otherwise despicable shenanigans of large entities like corporations and governments.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate
        link
        -21 year ago

        Wow, what a smug and condescending response that misses the point.

        First of all, I was clearly not trying to capture a legal definition, I said it seemed like a pretty name for petty theft to me, and I stand by that. In other words, people generally say they’re pirating something instead of saying they’re taking something illegally that doesn’t belong to them because that doesn’t make what they’re doing sound as good.

        I scanned through some of those communities, and I didn’t get a sense that trying to attain stuff that’s not available is anything approaching a majority of the discussion, but even so, it not being available where you are doesn’t make it okay to steal. And you’re being ridiculous if you’re trying to insinuate that (1) any meaningful percentage of the piracy communities are about whistleblowers uncovering unethical or illegal activity or (2) people in general use the word “piracy” to describe that activity. I mean, are there any mainstream articles about Manning, Assange, or Snowden that describe them as pirates?

        Still seems like a lot of folks trying to justify not paying for stuff they want.

        • @ttmrichter
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          Say “I didn’t read the contents of the comment I’m responding to” without using those words.

          • AFK BRB Chocolate
            link
            -11 year ago

            Didn’t I actually respond specifically to the main points one that comment? What did I miss?