Removal of piracy communities

Hello world!

Some of you will already have noticed that we have removed some piracy related communities from Lemmy.World during the last day.

Lack of communication

First off, we want to address the lack of communication.

Not everyone in our current admin team has been with us long enough to be aware of the previous issues and discussions related to these communities and the impact this has on our community.

We should absolutely have published this announcement when or before we removed the communities, not hours later. After realizing this mistake, we would have liked to write this a lot earlier already, but we were all busy with irl things, that we just didn’t have time for it.

Lemmy.World is run by volunteers on their personal time, nobody here gets paid for what we do.

Removed communities

Next, we want to explain how we got to the decision to remove these communities.

!crackwatch@lemmy.dbzer0.com

A lot of the recent content posted to this community included images instructing users to visit a specific website to obtain a copy of the release that the post is about. These instructions were in the form of Type in Google: visit-this.domain. The domain referenced in these posts is entirely focused on video game piracy and providing people with access to copyright infringing material.

While there may be legal differences between whether one is linking to specific content on a domain or just linking to the domain itself, such as linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_piracy compared to linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/, we do not consider this to be clear enough in laws and previous lawsuits that linking to just the domain is acceptable, if that domain is primarily about distributing copyright infringing material. We therefore do not allow linking to such domains. Additionally, we do not see a significant difference between posting a link directly to a website and embedding said link in an image, so we treat them equally.

!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

This community is, for the most part, just about discussing various topics related to piracy. We do not at all mind discussion about this topic, and if it had been limited to that, this community would be fine.

This community, however, contains a pinned Megathread post by a community moderator, which, through a few levels of a pastebin-like site, provides an aggregated overview of various sources of content. Some of these sources are entirely legal content, but it intentionally includes various other references, such as the website referred to from the CrackWatch community, which are primarily intended for copyright infringement.

lemmy.dbzer0.com is willing to accept this content on their instance, as well as the potential legal risk coming from this, which they’re free to do.

We do not plan to defederate from lemmy.dbzer0.com, but we will continue to remove communities that are directly facilitating copyright infringement. @[email protected], the admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com, is a great person, and we have no problems with him as a person. This is just a matter of different risk tolerance.

!piracy@lemmy.ml

Same as !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com.

Why have the piracy communities been restored previously? What changed?

Currently, based on the memories of team members involved in the decision back then, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the community moderators and Lemmy.World admins in how the community will be moderated going forward, as well as which types of content are allowed.

Lemmy.World expected/assumed that links to websites primarily focused on facilitating distribution of pirated content would be disallowed in these communities.

The community moderators however do tolerate references to such websites, as long as people are not linking to individual content directly.

We suspect that this may have been missed during our original review when restoring the communities, which lead us to previously restoring these communities.

Why now?

We have recently received a takedown request for content not directly related to these communities, but it prompted us to review other piracy related content and communities.

Terms of Service clarification

Last, as we’ve reviewed our Terms of Service, we have updated our wording here to make it more clear what is and what isn’t allowed when it comes to piracy. This was already covered by “Do not post illegal content of any type. Do not engage in any activity that may […] facilitate or provide access to illegal transactions” in section 4, but we have now added section 4.1 to better explain this.

We apologize for the delays in communication.

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I suspect lemmy.world doesn’t have the time, money, or patience to deal with the potential lawsuit or legal actions to required to defend that argument.

    • Hal-5700X
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      But the communities are hosted on .ml and dbzer0 not on World. So .ml and dbzer0 will be the ones in legal trouble.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is an untested legal question. The way federation works is that the content is hosted on Lemmy.world servers by virtue of being federated. The only way to not have the content hosted locally is to block those communities.

        Lemmy.world didn’t develop the federation standard and didn’t put the content up in the first place, but takedown requests and lawsuits traditionally targets content hosts, not necessarily the specific offending party who used the host. Sites avoid legal liability by policing their content, which Lemmy.world did in this case.

        I personally still think it’s shitty because fuck the man and all, but I get it. It’s not my ass on the line, it’s theirs.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          It will not hold up in court, this is like saying a search engine that has cached pages is liable for the info on those pages. The worst that happens is they get a request to pull the cached pages from their engine.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              That’s a fair point, and it’s crazy that it’s allowed to happen. Can’t afford to fight it? You must be guilty…such a shit thing.

            • Star@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              In my country, the state provides you with legal representation if you’re unable to afford it on your own. Is that not the case in other countries (USA and Europe specifically)?

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                It is in the USA as well, but usually public defenders are stretched so thin they don’t really help you.

                • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  One public defender (so, criminal cases for things that will get the person thrown in jail) said she had 248 active cases at the time of that interview, and those cases were all expected to be fast and over within 3 weeks. However everyday she closes cases she also gets piles more.

                  Essentially she has about 12 minutes to look over all evidence, and every detail of the case. But it didn’t matter, because regardless of the case she encourages all clients to plead for a shorter sentence, rather than a not guilty verdict.

                  Some even suggested that she intentionally did this just to get through cases faster that she doesn’t care about.

          • TornadoRex
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            You wanna plop down the money for a team of lawyers to test that theory I’m sure a server would be happy to take you up on it.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              No need to, nothing was hosted on anyones site, this is a nothing burger and a bullshit excuse to rid Lemmy of any piracy talks.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Well, that’s basically what a torrent community is, and plenty of those are targeted by takedown requests/lawsuits. They don’t host pirated content, they host access to pirated content which is hosted/seeded by others.

      • Mereo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nevertheless, they will need legal guidance to navigate this issue. These Lemmy instances are run by volunteers.

      • TornadoRex
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Right, but this is where the legal gray area comes in because it hasn’t been tested before. The way lemmy works is that lemmy.world is also hosting the content on their physical servers.