this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
52 points (98.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54462 readers
271 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sgagvefey@lemmynsfw.com 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DMCA subpoenas are nonsense. Having a judge rule on sufficient cause should always be the standard for any subpoena, and DMCA subpoenas can be signed off by a clerk.

A judge evaluating the merit and determining that there's cause for a subpoena is fine. But it's supposed to be the first step, not reliant on a platform pushing back and spending resources to make it happen.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The other dumb thing here is X pushing back via the first amendment when multiple district courts have ALREADY ruled and thus set case law and precedent that copyright infringement does not qualify for first protections.

Like I'm not sure why they'd take a tact they probably knew wasn't going to work other than to preen about protecting user rights, but doing it in a way that wouldn't work?