| ▲ | charcircuit 8 hours ago |
| Linking to piracy sites whose content is all blatantly stolen from artists does seem violating to me. |
|
| ▲ | ddtaylor 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That seems like an argument to go after the actual alleged illegally hosted materials through the proper DMCA takedown request. |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both should be done. Often the actual illegally hosted materials are on servers not friendly with takedown requests or will get immediately reloaded by the pirates. By going after the links it can cut off the ability for people to find the illegally hosted materials. | | |
| ▲ | ddtaylor 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems like a strange way to attempt to police the internet by proxy. The Internet should ignore or route around people attempting to police how nodes connect to each other. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree that the larger Internet should be capable of routing lawful traffic through jurisdictions where such traffic is lawful to another jurisdiction where the traffic is lawful. But within a country for example local laws should be applied to the traffic. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are two options here: 1) You can have an encrypted connection between two jurisdictions that have different laws, but then anyone can route around censorship because you don't know if they're discussing geopolitics or distributing DeCSS. 2) You can't have an encrypted connection between two jurisdictions that have different laws, which is >99% of all connections because even different cities have different laws, which is an Orwellian panopticon and the destruction of all privacy. I'm going to have to insist we stick with the first one. |
|
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is this like how in France, DNS resolvers are legally required to block certain websites? That's right, if you run "unbound" with default options in France you're a felon. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah. The government can dictate what you are and aren't allowed to do. This is not a novel concept. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Which is heartbreaking (and I'd argue misleading too), but not the whole story. You can only issue takedowns in relation with material that you have copyright over. At least one of these sites I know for a fact routinely scrubs FAKKU licensed content, and abides by takedown requests. |
|
| ▲ | raziel2701 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| what piracy sites is gallery-dl linking to? |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do not want to promote them here, but if you read the linked github thread you will see the names of what extractors were deleted. | | |
| ▲ | ddtaylor 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wait a second... By the view you're espousing right now, doesn't that make this conversation "illegal"? Why aren't we filing DMCA takedowns to HN because the list of the naughty sites is at the top of the page for this very thread? This seems like turtles all the way down. | |
| ▲ | logifail 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Through the DCMA lens, does a tool having the ability to download from example.com = linking to example.com? | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | In this case the files you could view on github literally had links directly to copyrighted works. It was not just that it was compatible with pirate sites. | | |
| ▲ | KomoD 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Where? I looked at a copy from March 16, and I only saw placeholders like 12345 and 12345/67890abcde in the files mentioned in the issue | | |
|
|
|
|
