this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
5 points (85.7% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54500 readers
1003 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
5
Can Lemmy be used to actually share files? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by planish@sh.itjust.works to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Obviously it wouldn't be allowed in this community, but how feasible would it be to make a community on a friendly instance and start shipping data through it somehow? If it works for NNTP it ought to work for ActivityPub, right?

Potential problems:

  1. Community full of base64'd posts immediately gets blocked by everybody's home instance.
  2. Community host immediately gets sued for handing out data it might not have a license for.
  3. Other instances that carry the community immediately get sued (see #2).
  4. Community host is in the US and follows DMCA and deletes all the posts that are complained about.

Maybe it would work as a way to distribute NZBs or other things that are useful but not themselves copyrightable? But the problem with NZBs is you have to keep them away from the people who want to send DMCAs to the Usenet providers about them, or they stop working. So shipping them around in a basically public protocol like ActivityPub would not be good for them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i like the idea, but the public nature of the protocol makes me think it might not be plausible. any concerned parties have full access to those communications. it would be a constant game of cat and mouse, and god forbid they take aim on an instance owner. it could set precedent.

[–] UsernameLost@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your instance name disturbs me