• 2 Posts
  • 103 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle
  • Okay, I see. I’d say they might be obligated to behave that way to maintain plausible deniability. Like, if they admit they were selling a piracy service and users are entitled to a refund when the piracy gets stopped, then they become more culpable. It was always based on a thinly veiled deniability. They had to comply with occasional takedown requests for this reason.

    I don’t know what the laws are like in France but they may have been worried about jail time or extra fines, and the state would want them to not issue refunds because that would punish the pirates.

    Plus if you tried to sue them for it… what are the courts going to say? “You’re all pirates, get lost” is the best outcome you could hope for. I hate to say it but the de jure reality is that you were purchasing a grey-market product and the law won’t protect you in that case, and you quite literally were not purchasing a piracy service. You were purchasing hosting of torrents of an unspecified nature. That’s the risk you take on when you engage in what you have admitted is piracy. It’s very naive to expect you’re getting any kind of consumer guarantee in that case.

    I say that as someone who uses these services. I’m not saying this is right, I think copyright should be abolished, but we need to understand the reality of the system we’re under.







  • Yup, I’d say these instances are cover for neoliberal and/or reactionary sentiments. Honestly with the attention federation has recieved I think we’d be foolish not to consider that the biggest open sign-up instances have an agenda or at least are being influenced in some way, with or without their knowledge or permission.

    If you think that’s going too far, I’d say the purpose of a system is what it does, and these large instances are systems unto themselves, and they serve this purpose whether intentionally or not.


  • At what point is supporting the prosecution of this assassin advocating for violence? The social murder done by the CEO is so many orders of magnitude greater, and the state will do violence to the killer to defend the industry’s right to do social violence.

    Nobody was having this conversation when people rightly cheered the deposing of Assad. Guess what? That involved violence, a lot of it. That was state-backed violence too though, so I guess we’re all just fine with it.

    The state calls its own violence “law” and that of the people “crime”.

    I guess lemmy.world is happy to just go along with whatever the state wants. It’s just insulting that you pretend it’s about “violence” and you expect people to believe you.