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. @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com, 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.

  • cookedslug@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 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.

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    Well, it’s more that we believe a domain root url embedded in an image, or a link to a rentry doesn’t really have any risks. At least, nothing likely to get us sued. Note that all these domain links existed (and still exist) in the reddit /r/piracy wiki for years without problems.

    The reason being that almost all of these takedowns are coming from automated crawlers, who won’t bother OCR every image they come across, or b64-decoding every string.

    • spiderman@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      yeah, as long as you don’t specifically point to a copyright infringing content things will be fine. that’s why all piracy related subreddits are still not taken down.

  • sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    When it comes to linking to content, it’s essential to understand that simply providing a link does not equate to sharing the actual content. Each URL on the Megathread serves the specific purpose of leading users in a particular direction.

    If this practice is deemed negative, then one could argue that every search engine operates erroneously. Search engines display results and guide users to specific destinations, mirroring the functionality of our approach to linking.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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
          0
          ·
          8 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
            0
            ·
            8 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.

            • TornadoRex@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 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
                0
                ·
                8 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
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 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.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 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
                0
                ·
                8 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
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

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

        • TornadoRex@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 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.

        • Mereo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

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

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 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.

      • MrKaplan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The execution should have been better, but the decision itself was a team decision, not an individual admin decision without talking to the rest of the team.

  • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is where the benefit of having more than one account on different instances comes in. When admins make a move users don’t like, users can just log into a different instance to access the content they want to see.

    Honestly though, not very good optics on doing this without any prior communication. You are going to do whatever you want on your instance, but as IIRC the biggest Lemmy instance, its a really bad look to be making changes without saying anything. It makes me (and likely others) wonder if you hadn’t been called out on it by some users posting about it if there would even have been an announcement like this at all. Granted, there is no legal obligation for transparency, but many users here greatly appreciate the transparency in the past that was done prior to taking action for the most part.


    Side note: Going to go out on a limb here and assume the content takedown request was Nintendo related, and the takedown request was probably filed by someone who does not actually represent Nintendo. This happens so often that it is basically my default assumption. This may or may not be the case here, but its hard to imagine that there would be anyone else with their eyes on such a tiny community as Lemmy, especially in comparison to Reddit.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yup, and this time it seems like they’re getting more support from the community than downvotes (or they’re upvoting their own post).

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Just early upvotes.

          I was a bit worried because those early votes had a very large positive ratio and that could mean a very drastic culture shift since the last one of these posts, which obviously wouldn’t bode well, not just for Lemmy.world but for interactions from it as well on other instances.

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well you see, since Lemmy.world is a large instance, the vast majority of the Lemmy network actually. Such decisions ultimately affect everyone else because they slash your engagement severely in all affected communities.

        So even on other instances the decisions of a behemoth like lemmy.world can still affect users there, in way more indirect and annoying ways.

        • maniajack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ok I can see that secondary impact. This is the reality is unless someone else is willing to run a big instance and accept the legal risk. To everyone complaining: first are you even donating to your instance, and second, willing to give a lot more $$$ to support them if there was a legal problem. I doubt they would.

        • Blaze@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Hopefully unhappy users will change instances and thé population will ne more spread as a result

  • WarshipJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    So you had plenty of time to make a decision, and follow through with it by banning multiple communities. But offering an explanations it’s all “we’re all volunteers and we’re too busy for this shit!”. Nice.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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.

  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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.giftedmc.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 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.giftedmc.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 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.

              • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                I miss raymond. :) sad they discontinued the series.

                But to the topic, thats why I say we need to able to talk about piracy without putting liability on .world or other big instances. Those are vital to getting more influx while the smaller niche instances are vital for keeping us resilient imo.

              • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 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.

    • Brickfrog@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com

      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.giftedmc.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 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.

  • kylian0087@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

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

  • Iceblade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    ಠ_ಠ

    Behold my look of slight disapproval.

    I’d much rather find out about these sorts of things from you guys than a fediverse post.

    I already have an alt for nosing around on such stuff since last time around, so it’s not hugely inconvenient.

    Still, thanks for keeping things running. Much appreciated!

  • hollyberries@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    What a pathetic response. I am interpreting this as:

    We will fold whenever we get a legal request, real or not.

    To users on .world, I strongly recommend scrubbing your posts, deleting your account, and then going to a different instance. These admins have proven that they WILL buckle to legal pressure no matter what - that means also giving up user data upon request. Your data is completely accessible by admins. That includes your private messages and unpublished pictures.

    Off the top of my head I can think of a few scenarios:

    • Being LGBTQIA+ in a country where its illegal to be
    • Consuming content from websites not approved by the Chinese government while being a Chinese citizen
    • Disparaging the Chinese government while being a Chinese citizen
    • Activism discussion (eg. extinction rebellion, antifa, the auntie network)
    • Right to repair in countries where its illegal to circumvent device DRM to perform repairs

    I’ve deleted my account there because that TOS and so-called privacy policy are complete and utter trash.

    • CurbsTickle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      @lwadmin@lemmy.world, this is my concern right here.

      Thanks for running things, but I can’t recommend people use lemmy.world at this point.

    • MrKaplan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      If we get a request, of course we will evaluate that request.

      When it comes to taking down content, such as copyright infringing content, we may err on the side of caution to reduce the legal risk we’re exposing ourselves to.

      When it comes to handing over data that is not already publicly accessible, such as (not-really-)private messages or IP addresses of users, we will not “err on the side of caution” and hand out data to everyone, but we must follow the laws that we’re operating under. See also https://legal.lemmy.world/privacy-policy/#4-when-and-with-whom-do-we-share-your-personal-information.

    • Blaze@dormi.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That includes your private messages

      Those messages are not private, there is a disclaimer about it every time you write one