this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
453 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59985 readers
2220 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 69 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Any time Nintendo is involved in a legal case, you can pretty safely assume they're probably wrong.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

On the other hand, r/switchpirates is transparently a community for the express purpose of pirating Nintendo games for their current system. It’s one of the rare cases where I think they probably can make a slam-dunk legal case to shut it down.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 40 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

To shut it down, sure. To get information on accounts simply for posting there? They can fuck off.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Nintendo is definitely overstepping with that request, but I can't say I feel bad for the subset of Redditors shitting their pants because they admitted to distributing* ROMs. Trusting a corporation to protect you from the consequences of your actions is a level of stupidity beyond deserving sympathy.

*Specifically distributing. Not downloading. Not discussing. Distributing.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Talking is irrelevant. It's debatable whether they're actually entitled to even compel the sub to be closed, as they didn't allow links to anything infringing, and discussion is protected. I just ignored that because I don't care.

Nothing there says anything that indicates there is any effort to restrict the information gathering to people actively distributing anything on the relevant platforms. Trying to demand the personal information of participants in discussions without direct, explicit proof that that account actually distributed pirated content makes them bad people. It is not excusable behavior.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Talking is irrelevant. It's debatable whether they're actually entitled to even compel the sub to be closed, as they didn't allow links to anything infringing, and discussion is protected. I just ignored that because I don't care.

There's a distinction between talking about piracy and admitting to committing copyright infringement on a public forum: the former is discussion, and the latter is self-incrimination. It's not going to actually matter unless that person makes themselves worthwhile to go after, but that doesn't make it any less stupid of an idea to admit to it in the first place.

Trying to demand the personal information of participants in discussions without direct, explicit proof that that account actually distributed pirated content makes them bad people. It is not excusable behavior.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm excusing Nintendo's overreaching demands from. Nowhere in my comment did I claim that Nintendo is entitled to any of the requested information.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, there isn't. Admission is unconditionally not grounds to gain information.

The literally only way there's any grounds to give them a single bit of information is in response to a direct, clear, action facilitating distribution of specific content Nintendo owns. They could provide direct evidence that they have pirated every piece of content Nintendo has ever made and it would not be excusable for Nintendo to even ask for their information.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

As per my previous comment:

Nowhere in my comment did I claim that Nintendo is entitled to any of the requested information.

And yes, you're correct: they could download every game ever created without paying for it and shout from the rooftops about doing so, and nobody would have a valid claim against them because that's not copyright infringement.

I'm specifically talking about the brilliant geniuses who, in no uncertain terms, state that they have or intend to personally upload, share, or otherwise redistribute in any form, ROMs and other copyrighted works. Only the government has the right to demand Reddit hands over personal information of its users, but if Nintendo asks and Reddit hands it over, I'm not going to feel bad for the subset of them that were stupid enough to paint a giant target on their own backs.

And that was the entire point of my original comment. Not "Nintendo gud", not "pirates bad", and certainly not "Nintendo has an involiable legal right to know the PII of pseudonymous users on another platform". Simply, "play stupid games while expecting Reddit to protect you from the consequences, win stupid prizes."

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about downloading.

You can say that you distribute content all you want. It is not actionable unless they can directly connect you to actual evidence of actual distribution. Forum bullshitting is not evidence.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That clarifies things a bit, but I don't quite agree with the premise that it's "not actionable unless they can directly connect you to actual evidence of actual distribution."

Copyright infringement sits in the interesting intersection where it can be persued both criminally and civilly. I agree with your premise in where it applies to criminal cases, but the bar for civil cases (lawsuits) is a lot lower at preponderance of the evidence.

If Infringement Igor dumps and seeds ROMs and BIOS images and talks about the new dumps he's uploading for fellow redditors and didn't take any precautions to mask his identity, he is more likely than not fucked if Reddit hands over his information. Courts have decided an IP address is by itself insufficient as proof that the account holder is the one committing the infrigement, but Nintendo having a matching email and phone number to support their claim is going to make it a lot harder for Igor to convince the judge that he didn't do it.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A lower bar to win a civil case doesn't entitle you to a fishing expedition. Courts have (correctly) thrown out bullshit subpoenas of people actively admitting to infringing activity, with the plaintiff promising not to pursue the infringers themselves, as part of a suit against the ISPs.

Online posts aren't grounds to compel information except in very specific circumstances.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think we both agree on that part. Don't get me wrong here, I 100% am against Nintendo on this one. They aren't entitled to anything, nor can I think of any good reason why one company should ever be allowed to compel another to provide details on their customers/users.

I have zero faith in Reddit on doing the right thing, though. If Nintendo asked nicely and Steve Huffingpaintman thought it would be more financially beneficial to play ball, I expect they would hand it over gift-wrapped with a pretty bow on top.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

They used to be pretty strict about posting links. If that's still the case, it's literally just a discussion forum discussing and promoting something illegal and not necessarily doing anything illegal. I'll wager that the judge would only sign off on information from users that Nintendo already has enough evidence against. But I guess we'll see.

[–] bilb@lem.monster 1 points 2 weeks ago

Except that time like 50 years ago when Universal sued because Donkey Kong was too close to King Kong.