18
votes
What is Tildes' policy on piracy?
Decided to drop down here and quickly ask what is Tildes' policy on piracy. Namely, should we be openly discussing, linking, directing users towards pirated content? Is it something that's strictly forbidden?
Apologies if I'm missing something, but if there isn't a statement on this already then what do you guys think the policy should be?
Found in the terms of use. As far as I know, this is everything that's been said on the matter.
I would recommend that everyone read the Terms of Use - it's straight forward and readable.
Keep the discussion open, I'd say. I don't need any other websites moralizing to me.
This!
I don't think you can just openly support piracy on any website in the clearnet, even those sketchy free movie websites claim that they're just 'video aggregators' and whatnot, not responsible for what their users post, although they will and have removed videos on explicit request. The only way to really do so is to host your servers in a country with loose piracy laws, or who are incapable of enforcing them but even then, TPB still gets raided with regularity. Now how strongly ~ chooses to enforce rules regarding piracy remains another story, but I suspect they won't be too lenient (ie. don't make your piracy group become too large and noticeable)
For what it's worth, technically those sketchy free movie streaming sites are legal in Canada where ~ is hosted, and presumably linking to them would also be.
At first I was about to say something along the lines of: "That said, I can't see any instance where posting these sites constitutes the kind of post we want on tildes", but then I realized ~music has been pretty much the exact same thing lately but with a different kind of media. So now I'm not sure what to say about that.
A significant portion of content on many aggregation sites is stolen copyrighted content that the content producer sees no revenue from.
That's not right and not moral. "Exposure" doesn't pay the bills. Going viral doesn't either excepting special circumstances.
That's part of the reason why I strongly support not having hotlinked image submissions (or illegally rehosted images that are copyrighted) be the baseline content on tildes.
Give credit and revenue where it's due.
Aside from policy... please don't refer to copyright infringement as piracy (murder and looting at high seas). It's not even remotely similar. This is just copyright trolls' tactic to make copyright infringement seem like it's a morally wrong thing to do by comparing it to something truly evil, when it's in fact only a legal matter, not a moral one.
Honestly, I don't feel like that word has any stigma attached to it. That's the first time I've heard anyone speaking up against using it. I think it's just a word that people are used to using in everyday conversation when talking about illegally getting access to digital material that you'd otherwise have to pay for. I don't see it as a negative word, it is what it is.
According to Etymology Online: Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701. How long does a word need to be used in a particular way for it to become acceptable to you? You won't use "piracy" to mean plagiarism or copying someone else's word, even though that usage is over 300 years old. You won't use the singular "they", even though that's about 600 years old. (But you will use "copyright" which was created after "piracy" added its meaning of plagiarism.)
How do you decide which words you'll use and which words you won't? What's your source? What are the criteria for deciding whether a word is acceptable to you or not?
I'm surprised you're not speaking ye olde Anglish.
"Copyright" is a new term created for a new concept.
"Piracy" and singular "they" are changed terms, modified for propaganda purposes.
Pray tell: what propaganda were Chaucer and Shakespeare engaging in when they used the singular "they"?
(I already know the answer for the word "pirate".)
Copyright infringement can definitely be a moral issue.
There can be overlapping moral issues (plagerism, not following through with paying someone what you agreed in advance, etc), but copyright infringement itself isn't one.
How is copyright infringement not an immoral act though? If someone creates something, are they not entitled to the revenue or recognition for the art they created?
Downloading an NES ROM is surely copyright infringement, and yet nobody is harmed by it - nobody manufactures the cartridges any more, so if you want to play an NES game then essentially your only option is to become a pirate.
For sure, in many (most?) cases it's wrong to acquire something without paying for it, but I would argue that if it's no longer possible to pay for something, it's not unethical to obtain it without paying.
Copyright does not guarantee revenue or recognition. Rather, it gives you control over what other people do with the information after you share it with them.
Sure, but in most cases, that control equates to being compensated or recognized for creating it. I realize there's a subtle distinction, but for practical purposes, that's what we're talking about.
No, in most cases, the creator doesn't even retain the copyright. Rather, some corporation gets the copyright, and the creator just gets a salary. The corporation has no right to revenue or recognition, only the original creator.
What kind of stuff is currently being distributed in ipfs? Last time I check they were kinda against using it for piracy? Has that changed? Where would someone look if they wanted to find hashes?
Thanks for the info.
I don't think ~piracy would be allowed, but a discussion on piratebay getting hacked or raided would probably be fine.
Tildes is definitely not the place for sharing sources of pirated content but there's no reason to avoid discussions surrounding the topic. There are plenty of guidelines that can be created on what users should not direct other users towards outside of a private message.