this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
743 points (99.5% liked)

Games

32162 readers
1718 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 121 points 3 days ago (2 children)

In my head this is a retribution for financing hackers that attacked Internet Archive and nobody can convince me otherwise

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 days ago

This is a conspiracy theory I'm completely behind. With all the moves Nintendo has made recently this was the first thing I thought when Internet Archive was compromised

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nintendo was responsible for that?

[–] [email protected] 56 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

It's like Lenin said, you look for the person who will benefit... And, uh... You know, you'll, uh... You know what I mean.

The Dude

„Who benefits the most” from attacking Internet Archive? Big copyright holders whose content was distributed via Internet Archive. The reason given by the group claiming responsibility is so silly I don’t believe it.

[edit] I’ll add to this comment so that I don’t have to reply to everyone specifically.

I don’t believe that if you wanted to attack USA (as people claiming responsibility did) you’d attack it in a way that benefits big corporations most. It sounds like a flimsy distraction from true perpetrators.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 3 days ago (3 children)

So you're just making wild assumptions?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's what I'm seeing, unless a documented source eventually shows up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

yes, I assume that

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can believe what you want, but there's absolutely no way you would be correct. Any large company sponsoring a cyber attack, if caught, would be nailed to the wall and made an example of. The extreme risks are simply not worth the comparatively small reward of reducing a tiny fraction of piracy.

A more realistic and reasonable avenue would have been to sponsor the companies going after IA for copyright infringement as a result of them loaning out unlimited digital copies of books without DRM.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago

This is a very valid point, yet companies do shady stuff all the time and some even get caught via subpoenas and such. Nintendo can do it in a way that will never be noticeable on their books for sure.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

For those curious, this account on Xitter claimed responsibility. Their stated reasons are indeed ridiculous, but I don't at all have a hard time believing that people can be that misguided.