this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
453 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59985 readers
2153 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.