And perhaps sidestepping its own policy in the process.

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    They didn’t share the content in Discord. It’s a huge distinction.

    If we were to interpret this the way it was applied in this case, pretty much all servers would have to be removed. You shared an image you don’t own the copyright to, server nuked. You shared the video you don’t own the copyright to, server nuked. You shared the link to some tool that allows you to download a video you down have a copyright to, server nuked.

    And there isn’t a court order “stating these tools violated Nintendo’s intellectual property rights” since the case was settled outside of court.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The only one I can see that could be applied to the situation is “risk for discord” if Nintendo threatened them with a lawsuit.

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Under which grounds? For a threat to work, it has to have some merits.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          They could threaten to sue discord for hosting copyrighted content, even if they expect to lose it doesn’t matter, the goal is to make discord close the channel and it worked.

          Cost/benefit analysis, you’ll probably win the lawsuit, it will still cost you a shit load of money in the meantime and you’re fighting against a company that has enough money to stop all its activities for a decade and still come out with enough funds to resume activities as if nothing happened. Or you can just ban one community from your platform.

          • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Right, if they host it, but they don’t. That’s the difference between what happened with GitHub/GitLab.

            And they can’t sue without the case having any merits. Meritless lawsuits also legally known as frivolous lawsuits are thrown out before even discovery phase with attorney fees awarded and the moron lawyers getting sanctioned.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Hosting isn’t necessary, providing access is enough, otherwise The Pirate Bay wouldn’t have had to change location again and again.

              • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Hosting is required under DMCA.

                Edit: Misread the part about The Pirate Bay.

                Previous comment

                And The Pirate Bay was banned and blocked hundreds of times, they have many proxy sites for that reason.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  And the fact that they didn’t host the content didn’t keep them from being raided and from seeing their servers being seized.

                  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Indeed, and they made them heroes, not villains. The Police Bay was a nice touch.

                    And DMCA wasn’t used as justification for the raid. US wasn’t even directly involved. It was explicitly mentioned that US law only applies to the US territory. You are grappling at straws to prove your point that is just false by any factual reading.

                    If that were the case, Lemmy would be illegal, since it allows you or me or anyone else to upload any image we don’t own the copyright to.