this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
328 points (99.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
57305 readers
299 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):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was actually hoping to see that as a defense. The principal thing that copy enforcement corps always cite is 'we downloaded a copy from their IP, thus they made a copy and distributed the work'.
If this works as a defense here then in effect they make direct download portals legal for the users at least.
You’re forgetting that they’re a rich corporation, and you’re not. They’ll get away with the defense, but even if it set a precedent, copyright groups can still sue you until you’re broke to make an example of you, even if you didn’t legally do anything “wrong”.
As long as you can sue someone for any reason without repercussions, then it’s always going to be the people with more money who come out on top. Always. Wining a lawsuit doesn’t mean you’re not still financially destroyed and driven into poverty for the rest of your life.
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal? Or usenet?
I think any progress here is mostly in principle, as I don't think there's a big practical risk to downloading only as it stands today, though I don't follow things as closely as I used to and could be mistaken.
Nobody in the US has ever been busted on copyright grounds for downloading anything, regardless of source. The law does not provide for enforcement against downloading; only uploading.
No, but even a baseless civil suit costs a lot of time and money to fight.
That's what I thought. I don't think their defense succeeding here really gets us anything new.
It doesn't get us anything new. It does put a big, gaping hole in the FUD that has been spread about the supposed "illegality" of downloading.
this is actually the way it works in australia: downloading content is not illegal; sharing content is illegal
thus as a consumer, usenet is fine
obligatory ianal