kylian0087 , 3 months ago

looks like I be spinning up my own private instance to not have to deal with de-federations or anything like that.

cookedslug , 3 months ago

where’s the integrity? quite frankly i don’t get the “we didn’t know” rhetoric. the previous removal is literally the most controversial post of all time.
understood that they can be subject to legal action. no blame for being risk adverse but this post is kind of a nothingburger.

Sanctus , 3 months ago

This shit again? Last time I jumped from world the instance I went to shut down. I guess its time to start looking at spinning up my own.

I get it. But I want to see that stuff. So I can't stay where I can't see it.

jelloeater85 , 3 months ago

That's totally understandable and we wouldn't blame you for moving to a instance that doesn't block piracy I'd you would like access to that. We just cannot take the risk.

Sanctus , 3 months ago

Damn, thats crazy

Rentlar , 3 months ago

I knew this announcement was coming and I'd figured this action would have come from an admin who wasn't aware of the previous context.

echodot , 3 months ago

I just love the idea that an admin would take action without communicating with literally anyone else on the team, and that be a totally normal and okay thing.

0xb , 3 months ago

I don't like the decision, like most people here.

But it's unbelievable to see the reaction of many users. Providing a free uncompensated server and bandwidth and monitoring and all the related stuff is apparently not enough. There's is people basically demanding free legal representation, protection, and challenges to many country laws. That's completely insane. The comments criticizing the instance for 'folding' against legal request better have ready 100k USD for retainer of a top copyright legal firm, with even more ready for a lengthy and expensive legal battle. Otherwise it is just nuts to me the responses we are seeing.

Again, of course I don't like it and will consider my options like moving instance, but I understand that I am responsible for the content I seek and the legality of it. I will not feel entitled to offload the burden of that responsibility on someone else demanding that it be carried for free.

To the instance admins I only have to say thank you for the service you provide, thank you for putting in actions the spirit of sharing and community. And please do exercise your right to protect yourself legally.

For us users is seems so simple as just export our stuff and go somewhere else, but for the instance admins there have been so much time and other resources invested that certainly must be sad and frustrating to risk it all, so it's better to follow the way that leads to the continuation of the project, and we should understand that if we want the project to continue, like I do.

I wish there were better options, like better laws or the independent tech for better protection and anonymity, but this is the reality of what we have and we all have to engage with things as they are. We can keep demanding changes to the people really in charge of the system instead of fighting among each other.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

The comments criticizing the instance for ‘folding’ against legal request better have ready 100k USD for retainer of a top copyright legal firm, with even more ready for a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

I hope you're not going to take this the wrong way, but I want to be clear - this is not at all what is involved in legal services or remotely the costs involved. Generally speaking, the review of a claim like this is an hour or two at most. You can also preemptively review these concepts with a lawyer, and get a handy-dandy letter or two to be used as a common first tier response (which also handily dismisses the majority of claims, which tend to be bunk). Several hours at least.

Costs for lawyers are typically in the $100-$600/hour range, with very few (top partners at large firms) getting into the $2k-$3k/hour territory. A lawyer with a specialty in intellectual property is going to land smack in the middle of average these days, around $250-$350/hr.

A $100k retainer, or any retainer really, is unnecessary. The actual costs for some basic legal support are about the low range in costs for a month of operation of their servers ($900-$2200/mo per their own public costing statements through opencollective).

Forget anything else in terms of piracy communities or anything else. Speaking with a lawyer to cover the bases is a smart decision - remember that there have already been issues like CSAM that have cropped up. A bit of up-front smarts and a couple of hours with a lawyer pays dividends. The reality is, them making guesses - and immediately backing down to any request - is a problem for anyone using their servers. Its a real concern, don't be dismissive.

0xb , 3 months ago

I hope you're not going to take this the wrong way

Absolutely not, I also agree, as some others have pointed out, that there have been mishappens with communication, so I'm glad that there's discussion about the issue. Thanks for clarifying with your knowledge and doing so nicely.

this is not at all what is involved in legal services or remotely the costs involved

To be honest, everything I know about that is what I have read about the number of cases when platforms or other kind of purveyors of piracy are sentenced to or settle paying tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or even millions. Those are real cases where the people involved obviously felt very confident about their legal safety. Surely, most of the situations are not like that and don't even get to be in the news because of how insignificant the resolutions are.

But, is there a way to be sure about what kind of outcome would lemmy.world would get to be completely confident about doing or not doing one thing or another?

Costs for lawyers are typically in the $100-$600/hour range, with very few (top partners at large firms) getting into the $2k-$3k/hour territory. A lawyer with a specialty in intellectual property is going to land smack in the middle of average these days, around $250-$350/hr.

Is that just one time? Is that total to get a safe and definitive resolution? Or is that every time the situation arises? What about companies that exist exclusively to massively send takedown requests? What about copyright trolls? If the instance openly accepts the legal liability, the number of times that this happens will decrease, increase or stay the same?

The reality is, them making guesses - and immediately backing down to any request - is a problem for anyone using their servers. Its a real concern

I guess we go back to the point I tried to make. My position is that the instance admins are not obligated to be a legal shield for the users to have any kind of content that we want on the platform. This is not a privacy-focused nor a free speech-focused service, never has been, data is not encrypted, users have identifiable information, there are commercial services being used to run it, used under another set of TOS and hired with real world legally responsible identities. To say 'Well the legal cost of keeping piracy on the site is not that high I think' seems like an unfair position to me.

I do pirate stuff myself, sometimes because it is more convenient, sometimes because it is moral, sometimes is the only option. But I take the responsibility of doing so myself. If whatever site I use decides to shut down tomorrow, I won't make a fuss about it. Demanding to someone else to face the possibility of legal trouble because it will only take them a few hours and max a couple of thousand dollars and is comfortable to me, is what seems concerning to me.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

To be honest, everything I know about that is what I have read about the number of cases when platforms or other kind of purveyors of piracy are sentenced to or settle paying tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or even millions. Those are real cases where the people involved obviously felt very confident about their legal safety. Surely, most of the situations are not like that and don’t even get to be in the news because of how insignificant the resolutions are.

I'd say not only are most situations not like that, the ones you are referencing are specifically people who were actively sharing content. There are a couple of decades of history on this stuff.

But, is there a way to be sure about what kind of outcome would lemmy.world would get to be completely confident about doing or not doing one thing or another?

Well this is what a lawyer is for. As well as liability insurance (another often misunderstood thing - every group/business/etc is different, but a general liability policy for a million or two USD costs most folks around $1-$2k per year.) But there is quite a bit of established law, yes. If you link directly to materials that would be infringing, but not host, you can be considered as intentionally encouraging direct infringement - note that this is with a direct link only. This goes back about... 20ish years to MGM and Grokster.

Also established - thumbnails are fair use, indexing or linking to a website (but not to content directly) is an intrinsic use/function of websites. If a direct link is made, the site owners need to remove that link when notified either by report or by a claim from the IP holder. There are even safe harbor provisions specifically around sites like Lemmy (and other link aggregators), which a lawyer can provide the guidelines on how to ensure they apply.

Is that just one time? Is that total to get a safe and definitive resolution? Or is that every time the situation arises?

It depends on what we are talking about. Reviewing a specific claim? One time cost. Getting a good general response to any random bunk claim that comes their way? One-time-ish, it doesn't hurt to check in with the lawyer every once in a while to see if anything needs updating. No lawyer I know is going to charge to read their own letter, but they may say "There are some extra references that can be brought in here from recent case law, I'd estimate 30 minutes of work" which would be an extra cost obviously.

What about companies that exist exclusively to massively send takedown requests?

A great reason to have already spoken with a lawyer and have a prepared response. Also a great reason to speak with folks at the EFF should the need ever arise, they like going after copyright trolls.

If the instance openly accepts the legal liability, the number of times that this happens will decrease, increase or stay the same?

Who said there is legal liability being accepted? What liability legally? Specifically.

My position is that the instance admins are not obligated to be a legal shield for the users to have any kind of content that we want on the platform.

No, but this is the part where I think you're missing something really important. The piracy community (communities) aren't the issue to me. Lets recap what happened here.

There was a claim that came in on something - unrelated to these communities. There was, as far as has been posted, absolutely only a request, with no response other than lemmy.world simply agreeing to what was demanded. This has not had any actual legal review, and may have been a completely valid or invalid request.

They then decided to apply this request (valid or not) as a concept to other areas, and simply disabled access. There were supposedly hours of discussion here, and then the change was made, with absolutely zero discussion. There were never any comments expressing concerns to any of the effected communities or the admins of the instances which manage those communities. There was no posting here until hours after it was brought up on another instance. This is also only a few months after they admitted to doing a terrible job of communicating and promising to do better.

There was an unsubstantiated claim from an unknown entity, and their decision on how to apply that (not just to the claim, but to unrelated communities) was done unilaterally and without any legal input.

Forget piracy. There is a trust problem. Why would you feel comfortable providing them with any information of yours if you live in a country where you may be concerned for your safety - not even now, but in a few years - for having the unmitigated gall to admit you are (gay/trans/bisexual/a believer in a socialist meritocracy/atheist/muslim) on a place where there are no legal precautions actually being taken? Where the word of someone sending a letter matters more than what the law might actually say?

My issue with the decision here has almost nothing to do with piracy or those communities. It has to do with trust. And they lost mine.

0xb , 3 months ago

Why would you feel comfortable providing them with any information of yours if you live in a country where you may be concerned for your safety - not even now, but in a few years - for having the unmitigated gall to admit you are (gay/trans/bisexual/a believer in a socialist meritocracy/atheist/muslim) on a place where there are no legal precautions actually being taken? Where the word of someone sending a letter matters more than what the law might actually say?

As I said, I agree that communication has not been great. I can budge on that, even if it is not even my original point. The admins (and all the fediverse really) could more clearly state that everything on this site is basically public. This is not Signal, this is not Telegram, this is not the dark web and this is not a corporation with a legal department. User should be mindful of that when posting. It is precisely people under immoral laws and governments, or concerned about personal safety the ones that need to be careful about their activities, because if their risk is anything greater than downloading a videogame without paying, some guy in another country reaching out to a lawyer for an hour is not likely to provide them relief. I don't like that, but is the reality. The site should improve on making the users aware of that reality.

About my original point, it seems that we agree that the site is not under any obligation to provide legal shield, whatever legal options exist or not, are costly or not. It would be great if they provided them. I think setting up an operation like this at own cost for free is a show of values and the quality of a person, and I think that would show if the stakes were higher, like the examples you provide. It would also be great that people with expertise in legal affairs, like you seem to be, volunteered to carry on that job, like the admins carry the technical job voluntary. But not them nor you or anybody should be forced to do so. Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

The admins (and all the fediverse really) could more clearly state that everything on this site is basically public.

To an extent - lets not forget that a bunch of identifying information is visible to admins, not to users, not publicly. Which is why a privacy policy (such as the one on lemmy.world) is so important, and why it would seem so frustrating when basic legal practices are functionally ignored. What's the difference between a random troll sending cease and desists out, and a certain corrupt POS Texas AG requesting all the folks who have ever commented that they were trans? Both can be completely and utterly unfounded, and yet still bring you into a lengthy court battle.

because if their risk is anything greater than downloading a videogame without paying, some guy in another country reaching out to a lawyer for an hour is not likely to provide them relief. I don’t like that, but is the reality. The site should improve on making the users aware of that reality.

I have to disagree there, because competency comes into play. Speaking to a lawyer and being aware of how to say "No" properly is important. Knowing how to document bad requests and bad faith actors. Having someone you can reach out to and follow-up with for an unsubstantiated nonsense request from a hate monger is important.

Rolling over immediately and preemptively making decisions on unrelated communities however... that doesn't provide me with warm and fuzzies.

It would also be great that people with expertise in legal affairs, like you seem to be, volunteered to carry on that job, like the admins carry the technical job voluntary. But not them nor you or anybody should be forced to do so. Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

To be clear here - I am not a lawyer. I have run forums before (and I can guarantee the issues around piracy and illegal materials that are bound to be posted have not changed), I worked with lawyers, I carried general liability insurance, etc. These aren't specialty things, this is what basic operations looks like.

Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

I don't think I've seen any of that personally. I'm one of the people who called out an admin for not actually talking to a lawyer though - and frankly I think they should have done that months and months ago. Even just to have found someone available who could provide services as needed.

MrKaplan , 3 months ago

as I'm very tired right now, I only want to comment on one of the arguments/questions you brought up.

you're asking for the difference between taking down content and providing information about users.

its very simple actually. sharing non-public data is a very different story than removing access to otherwise public information, whether it's originally coming from Lemmy.World or elsewhere.

when we take down content, even if it's more than legally strictly necessary, the harm of such a takedown is at most someone no longer being able to consume other content or interact with a community. there is no irreversible harm done to anyone. if we decided to reinstate the community, then everyone would still be able to do the same thing they were able to do in the beginning. the only thing people may be missing out on would be some time and convenience.

if we were asked to provide information, such as your example of a Texas AG, this would neither be reversible nor have low impact on people's lives. in my opinion, these two cases., despite both having a legal context, couldn't be much further from each other.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

You'll have to excuse me here, but I am currently having a hard time believing anyone from the lemmy.world team at the moment.

What I'm referring to, and was not replied to, was the difference between two requests made on a legal basis. What I did not refer to was content access.

What the .world admin team has shown me is that they don't understand the legal aspects, made assumptions about them rather than actually seeking counsel, did not actually communicate in a way that has been repeatedly promised by the team, and didn't even bother to reach out to alert other directly related admins.

I'm a "show, don't tell" sort of person. And what has been shown is that I do not wish to be on lemmy.world any longer, in part because I'm really going to have a hard time trusting any of you after this.

Not due to the decision necessarily, but the approach and actions. I hope you can understand why that would be the case.

MrKaplan , 3 months ago

maybe I misunderstood your comment, I read your Texas AG example as asking for information about users. did you mean Texas AG asking for the removal of comments where people are stating they're trans?

haui_lemmy , 3 months ago

So to make it clear: people are allowed to make new piracy centric communities with the express rule to not post direct links to primarily providing copyright infringing material?

I‘m not a lawyer but I read legal texts at times.

This would most likely save .world from the repercussions (btw its how reddit mostly handles it afaik) and maybe some posts could be crossposted on a per case basis.

I‘m trying to be constructive here so please be gentle.

Disclaimer: it is fairly easy to host a lemmy instance, please consider helping thw fediverse by hosting if youre a tech savvy person. Otherwise, join a stable instance at https://fediseer.com

Rooki , 3 months ago

Yes there could be that "workaround" for legal posts but like said if there is one direct to a torrent, download or a mega thread website where you can download any illegal stuff the post will be removed. This includes stuff like instructions to put word by word into google search.

haui_lemmy , 3 months ago

i get that. Why would this change anything? The legal threat is real and .world is a prime target for everyone who wants to see lemmy fail.

Its obviously the best choice and we have fediseer or selfhosting as alternatives. I dont see how there is any other choice or even consideration to be had at this point.

Feel free to help me see it if I missed something.

Rooki , 3 months ago

Because of such legal threats we chose to ban illegal stuff and have the "first" tos and privacy policy of a lemmy instance

haui_lemmy , 3 months ago

The problem with „illegal“ is that it evolves with the political climate. It is illegal to be gay in some countries. Should we ban gay people as well then?

My opinion is that we should break any law if it is unjust in terms of freedom. If art gets destroyed or withheld for greed or spite then we absolutely should break this law. The current IP model is anti consumer and doesnt help small creators either (I‘m one of them).

Thats why talking about piracy and discussing it must be okay and allowed (because a, it is legal and b, we need to discuss the extent of legally or morally justified). Imo, that is.

MrKaplan , 3 months ago

Lemmy.World is legally primarily bound by the countries listed here.

if being gay became illegal in NL for example, and there would be laws to prevent talking about gay people, then we'd have to either no longer tolerate such content on our platform or ensure we're no longer bound by dutch laws.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

if being gay became illegal in NL for example, and there would be laws to prevent talking about gay people, then we'd have to either no longer tolerate such content on our platform

Yes, you are repeating exactly why this is concerning to users, and why I'm personally no longer on lemmy.world. It can't be trusted.

MrKaplan , 3 months ago

What would be the alternative?

Moving the instance behind Tor and hoping to never get identified?

As long as you're operating a service on the internet you'll be bound by laws in one place or another. The only thing you can do against this is trying to avoid being identified and therefore trying to evade prosecution. This is not a legal defense.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

Actually questioning the validity of a claim before proceeding to give in, for starters. Maybe seeking legal help from one of the many advocates out there.

If the response is an immediate white flag being raised, then anyone who posts on lemmy.world who has any semblance of risk now or in the future is fully at risk with lemmy.world. How is that assertion wrong?

Does 'not immediately folding under even the slightest request' require tor?

Does communication publicly before a decision with large implications like this require tor or hiding your identity?

MrKaplan , 3 months ago

We do question the validity of claims, but when it comes to takedowns of copyright related content, we simply do not have the resources to throw money at lawyers to evaluate this in detail. We can apply common sense to determine if something appears to be a reasonable request, but we can't pay a lawyer to evaluate every single request. We also can't afford going to court over every case, even if we were to win, because those processes take large amounts of personal time and have a risk of significant penalties.

Legal advocates on Lemmy or any other platform for that matter are not a substitution for legal council.

curbstickle , 3 months ago

I don't believe I made any claim that a legal advocate on Lemmy is a substitute for legal council.

I said there are advocates out there. There are law groups which focus on open source software and community run services who pay for that work by either the ability for that group to pay on a sliding scale, or completely pro bono as it's supported in the back end by corporate clientele or other similar services. But that's a complete digression.

We do question the validity of claims

Just being candid here - I haven't seen that. In this post or any other by admins. Obviously this could be entirely behind closed doors, but even then, none of that has been communicated here has it?

We also can't afford going to court over every case, even if we were to win, because those processes take large amounts of personal time and have a risk of significant penalties.

And on the basis that no real effort to push back here has been visible, why would any other risk category be any different? Why would someone who could be persecuted want to risk themselves with lemmy.world?

I think the position has been clear, and entirely the decision of Lemmy.world. I'm just being clear about why that creates a trust issue.

brickfrog , 3 months ago

So to make it clear: people are allowed to make new piracy centric communities with the express rule to not post direct links to primarily providing copyright infringing material?

Nope, it's more than that. Lemmy.world admins don't want you to link to any websites that link to anything that might contain direct links or references to direct links. Strangely that means that linking to Google or Reddit would fail that test so links to those sites should be removed by lemmy.world admins too.

Per admin's own post they removed !piracy

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.

The megathread post that admins are referring to contains links to a different website that contains links - that website is not on Lemmy at all. Lemmy.world admins took this removal action because the community contains a link to another site that may contain links lemmy.world admins don't like.

haui_lemmy , 3 months ago

Hmmmm… I get your point. That might become a bigger problem in the future because it implies .world admins and mods are not following a logical ruleset. But its not my place to demand it from them. Their users have to do that. I dont even have an account on world.

Aurix , 3 months ago

This is on the mod team of the mentioned communities. On no commercial site this crap would fly. On reddit fitgirls site is never mentioned in full for good reason. Crosslinking to pastebin blobs is just formaiity. These communities should be kept clear of any linking.

LonelyNematocyst , 3 months ago

On reddit fitgirls site is never mentioned in full for good reason.

That's just false. There's a direct link in the r/piracy megathread.

Koof_on_the_Roof , 3 months ago

Thank you for your hard work. I feel that a delay of a few hours is acceptable for a voluntary service. I am sure there are many commercial services which have much worse communication.

I personally feel that being able to discuss piracy but banning communities that have links that actively promote piracy seems like a sensible safe legal position. This is probably what I would do if there was even a possibility I might be legally liable for an instance.

I can understand users frustration but I don’t think it’s fair to take it out on the admins. It is a thankless task which people do to benefit their community. The great thing with the fediverse is that you have other low cost options to turn to if an instance no longer works for you.