The instance owners do not wish to host potentially problematic content.

I will try to locate a more suitable instance.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
9 points
*

Yeah fuck those instance owners for not taking on legal risk! We don’t pay them and they should pay for our legal fees out of respect for the content we generate (which is copywritten and could get the instance owner in legal trouble)!

Edit: typos. Also, to explain: I just want y’all to consider the folks who keep the instances running and the legal risk they take. Some instances don’t want to take on the risk. It’s not a left/right thing, it’s a risk-assesment thing. Removing content that might get them in legal trouble doesn’t mean that the instance is taking a political, ethical or moral stance on the topic. It’s really weird to think otherwise. My point was that when the instance owners get a dmca takedown notice (doesn’t really matter what country, doesn’t really matter if theh own the rights to that content or not), they are faced with a choice: do nothing and get sued, possibly needing to shut down the free service as a result. Or, they can choose to remove the content.

Conversational forums like lemmy are still places where links to pirated content can exist. I know people just talk about pirated content and that it’s moderated but hear me out: sometimes people get busy and fall behind. They could then end up with a lawsuit.

To avoid this, a reasonable policy might be to just avoid the topic altogether. But that doesn’t make them right or left wing, it just makes them regular site admins without an unlimited amount of money or the desire to go off grid and on the run. Yeah, that’s the worst case scenario, my point simply being “free service run for long time if rules prevent legal threats to the service’s livelyhood” see: napster.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

They have a right to be exclusive and we have a right to not like it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

There are rights and there is if what theyre used to do in a situation is reasonable. Here, the point isnt that you dont have the right to complain, its that complaining that they should risk getting in legal trouble isnt reasonable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Civil disobedience: forbidden.

Discussion civil disobedience: banned.

Advocating to allow the discussion of civil disobedience: unreasonable.

Jesus Christ, what is the origin of political change, in your reality? Suggestive whimpering?

permalink
report
parent
reply
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Some jurisdictions are relatively more permissive than others, so the legal risk is not uniform. There will be some user flows until the instance landscape has settled.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Which jurisdiction, mine or yours? Or what about the other person who will comment under this?

Is that the 123.52.33.19 jurisdiction or the 95.32.122.99 jurisdiction?

In other words, on the internet, how are you going to reliably change the content to fit the viewer’s jurisdiction?

Just so people know, when you send a request to the internet, you’re not sending a request from your home address, you’re sending it from an IP address. Those IP addresses are not linked to City, State and Country, at least not reliably. MaxMind has a “GeoIP” database of “best guess” countries for IP addresses, but even if lemmy software were to implement geoIP gating like this, you’d have to taylor individual communities to individual jurisdictions and…

NO ONE IS DOING THAT. Nor will they anytime soon, most likely.

On the internet, it’s far easier to just shut the topic down, as was done with piracy. Sure, folks can share pirated content inside the “spiders” community if they wanted to, but that’s at least a little harder for rights holders to find than the “piracy” community. And by rights holders I mean companies that scan the web for keywords and link and send out automated DCMA takedown requests.

Your point may stand in court but we’re on the internet and those instance owners are likely trying to avoid going to court.

Again, instance owners aren’t instance owners because they want to be your political advocates in court, at their own expence, at the threat of the site being shut down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The relevant part is the legislation of the instance hosting location and the degree of anonymity of the instance owner and his attitude.

Hetzner is the very opposite of bulletproof hosting, the owner of lemmy.world is fully public and his attitude to potentially problematic content is on public record.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

copywritten

Underlining how worthless your hot take is. You know less than nothing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ah, toxicity is always the best way to win arguments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Did you see the bullshit I’m responding to?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

The redditor ethos

permalink
report
parent
reply

You’ve never heard of Copywrite law? Is libgen not a site for distrubiting copywritten content like text books?

Look, I’m on the information wants to be free side of things, but I do know a bit about the law.

Please, oh wise one, break down my stupidity and leave no detail out!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

You’ve never heard of Copywrite law?

Google it.

Don’t scoff. Copy-paste that term into any search engine. See what you get instead.

permalink
report
parent
reply

libgen

!libgen@lemmy.world

Create post

Library Genesis (LibGen) is the largest free library in history: giving the world free access to 84 million scholarly journal articles, 6.6 million academic and general-interest books, 2.2 million comics, and 381 thousand magazines.

Telegram: https://t.me/s/nexus_search

Web: https://libgen.rs https://libgen.fun/

Related: https://annas-archive.org/

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 5

    Posts

  • 70

    Comments

Community moderators