Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54500 readers

816 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

[email protected]

721

Reddit beats film industry again, won’t have to reveal pirates’ IP addresses (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While we can be pretty confident that Reddit has its own motivations (i.e. self-interest) for fighting these lawsuits, this is still a good news story for pirates.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Careful with this. Downloading pirated content can definitely be illegal depending on where you live.

It's just not usually enforced as heavily as redistributing.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

More specifically there is no US Federal Law about obtaining pirated works, only the Redistribution

17 U.S. Code § 506 - Criminal offenses

(a)Criminal Infringement.—
(1)In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A)for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B)by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C)by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(2)Evidence.—
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
(3)Definition.—In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means—
(A)a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution—
(i)the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii)the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B)a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture—
(i)has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii)has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

So, basically, downloading cracked adobe products is always right. It's always morally acceptable. But your provider is risking their ass.

The big industry names want to make you believe that you'll be punished for downloading a car. It's all fearmongering.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Yes but you commented on a global website, so your previous generalist statement definetly doesn't apply to everyone reading it :)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

It's a US site and a US court.

US law is the only thing relevant to the case being discussed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Then share your local law. Don't be pissy that Americans are clarifying for other Americans.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

America is such a small country though, no one would assume anything said online is directed at it's miniscule population without an explicit reference.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Whoops, your bias is showing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thats why I stated at the top that more specifically there is no "US Federal law..."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And that's why they specifically referred to "your previous generalist statement" where you didn't do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Listen, they either reply to the comment they wanted to reply to, or they did it wrong. They replied to the comment that prefaced with a statement about US Law in particular. It should be clear to them that the statement applies to US Law.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

this! there are countries other than the US

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

The US Media Companies demanding user details from a US Social Media Company is in the USA though. In case that was unclear to some people.