Earlier, after review, we blocked and removed several communities that were providing assistance to access copyrighted/pirated material, which is currently not allowed per Rule #1 of our Code of Conduct. The communities that were removed due to this decision were:

We took this action to protect lemmy.world, lemmy.world’s users, and lemmy.world staff as the material posted in those communities could be problematic for us, because of potential legal issues around copyrighted material and services that provide access to or assistance in obtaining it.

This decision is about liability and does not mean we are otherwise hostile to any of these communities or their users. As the Lemmyverse grows and instances get big, precautions may happen. We will keep monitoring the situation closely, and if in the future we deem it safe, we would gladly reallow these communities.

The discussions that have happened in various threads on Lemmy make it very clear that removing the communites before we announced our intent to remove them is not the level of transparency the community expects, and that as stewards of this community we need to be extremely transparent before we do this again in the future as well as make sure that we get feedback around what the planned changes are, because lemmy.world is yours as much as it is ours.

  • pankuleczkapl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. You baselessly assume patents are the same as allowing copying content for personal use
    2. If money is the only reason for someone to make content, then we are better off without it
    3. If a company changes prices and loses customers, it is entirely their problem, not the customers’. It’s the definition of free market
    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. I didn’t make any such assumption, I’m just saying if anyone can copy anything then copyrights and patents are meaningless. It follows from my hypothetical.
      2. The vast, vast majority of all content is made for financial gain. How many movies do you think would get made if people couldn’t get paid for it. There’s a lot of costs to just break even considering location rentals, shooting permits, craft and food costs, etc. All the people involved do it to make a living. How much content would there be if it was only donated time and materials?
      3. I have two big problems with this. For one, I didn’t say they were losing customers, I said the paying customers are subsidizing the costs of the thefts. Secondly, how can you possibly blame a store for raising prices to cover the costs of thefts? Should they just operate at a loss? How do they pay their employees?

      Again, lots of rationalizations for taking stuff without paying. Can I ask you what you do for a living and if you think whatever product or service it is should be provided by you for free?

      • pankuleczkapl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. If you only care about quantity, then sure, go ahead
        2. Then it’s the customers’ fault for still choosing this provider and paying more

        For a living, I mostly write software and do research in mathematics, and yes it should be free. I don’t necessarily say that there should not be an option to pay for using it for business purposes, but in my opinion it should always be possible to easily and legally get it for personal use. I cannot share the code directly due to NDA’s, but it still should be public and accessible for any physical persons.

        • pankuleczkapl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          And an important thing I forgot to mention: you assume that piracy is some invisible force that makes customers not buy the product and inflicts purely theoretical losses to the company, while in reality the vast majority of pirates would not buy the product anyways, and some (like me) have bought hundreds of e.g. games, just because they liked the pirates version. Some studies have shown that piracy has a positive net influence on the number of sold copies. Saying that piracy loses sales is just a stupid rhetoric used by greedy callous companies to raise prices even more, though the product does not change.

          • pankuleczkapl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do, but do note that all public research is funded somehow, though importantly it is public, so free to access. This is my idea of how all research should be conducted.

            • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree, public research is usually funded by government grants, which means paid for by our taxes, and so it’s for public benefit. That’s a pretty special case, and only applies to a tiny percentage of jobs.

              Most people make ends meet by working a job that ultimately is funded by the sale of a product or service.

              • pankuleczkapl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sale of revokable for any reason at all licenses to access digital content should be a crime, not piracy. This content can be infinitely reproduced with no harm to the owner, in fact in most cases the owner doesn’t even know that you specifically copied the content. I completely agree that everyone should support creators they like, but I completely disagree that it should be compulsory on often whatever terms the author comes up with to extort as much money as they can.

                • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This content can be infinitely reproduced with no harm to the owner, in fact in most cases the owner doesn’t even know that you specifically copied the content.

                  I don’t think theft becomes something lesser if the victim isn’t aware of it. If you pickpocket a $20 from my back pocket that I didn’t realize was there, it’s still theft.

                  And I think the argument about the content being digital and infinitely copyable is also a rationalization. If I’m trying to make a living as an independent software developer and I spend two years of my life making a game hoping it will become popular, you making a copy of it for free is still harming me, even if I’m not aware that you did it - it’s you getting the fruits of my work without compensating me. We have copyright laws to encourage people to make content, knowing that their work will be protected. Without that protection, there’s no reason to make that content.

                  Again, lots of rationalization for taking something you want without paying for it. It always comes down to “it’s a big company, it won’t hurt them” or “no one will even know I made a copy so it shouldn’t be a crime,” etc.

                  • pankuleczkapl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Not being aware was a simpler expression to convey “does not have any influence on that person”. And no, it does not harm you. Please explain what difference does it make to you if someone does not buy the game or does not buy the game and pirate it. And better yet, if you think that the comparison should be between a specific human being purchasing the game or pirating for it, please explain how can you prove someone did have the intent to buy the game? Even if so, the person responsible is not the one making a decision to pirate, but the one making it available for piracy. I still disagree with this view of reality, but for me personally assigning more responsibility to the websites offering content rather than the users is a more sensible middle ground. The main problem for me is the idea of a “lost sale”, whereas it is not possible to prove someone was going to buy the product. I’ve even seen some people suggest things like “if you are poor and can’t afford entertainment then you shouldn’t have entertainment”, which is completely absurd, because in this case specifically piracy even more clearly has no negative impact on anyone, and just a positive one for the person unable to afford a product.