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.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s say we live in a world where anyone is allowed to copy anything without issue or cost. Patents are now meaningless because people can copy an invention and make their own version, so there’s no incentive for anyone do the entrepreneur thing or invent new devices. There’s no reason for musicians to record anything other than maybe to drum up interest in their tours. No reason for digital artists to put things online. No writer is going to allow their work to be published as an ebook. Etc.

    The costs to make things don’t change and the profit targets don’t change, so the people who do this are just causing higher prices for the prior who don’t, in exactly the same way as stores raise their prices to cover the costs of shoplifting.

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The one where artists create art for financial gain.

          That’s fucking hilarious. I don’t know how uncreative and unartistic you must be to hold such a view, but… “The starving artist” isn’t on a hunger strike. They’re dirt poor.

          This key ideological crux of your argument leads me to believe you are so disconnected from creating art that I cannot bother myself to engage in a discussion with you about the nuances of intellectual property and if it even should exist at all. You’re just blowing hot air around, and I’m not here for it. Neither is anyone else, it seems. So, cheers. I’m sure you’ll say something, and I’m sure it will further illustrate your disconnection to this argument, so I probably won’t respond.

    • 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.