So uhhh, what now
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
354 points (99.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54539 readers
201 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 |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
another one will rise no doubt, either they use a platform that doesn't care for DMCA's or they play the whack-a-mole game with the enforcers
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What a useless gesture. It's git code. So long as it remains on one machine, you can upload it to any git instance.
No one should be surprised though that GitLab is protecting their business.
It was an anonymous DMCA takedown with spelling mistakes, they're just being extra careful. Plus Suyu isn't going anywhere, it's run by junior devs with 0 experience. Sudachi is run by one guy and he's made more tangible progress, just for reference.
Like I said, it's an empty gesture. Unless Nintendo seizes the computers of all the devs, the code will live on and uploading it somewhere is very very easy.
Aren't there any git services hosted in countries like Russia?
We need federation of sourceforges FFS.
I've been seeing for a while comments like yours that put a license link at the end of the comment. Can you explain to me the benefits of doing that or is it makes any difference? If I'm not mistaken the content posted on a Lemmy instace adheres to the license that the instance is using.
It's purely for commercial AI on my end. Researchers have gotten LLMs to spit out their training data: street addresses, medical data, entire comments, and of course licenses.
Some countries are still deciding whether commercial LLMs are infringing on copyright by training on copyrighted material without approval, others have already decided. I think the major economical zones that will impact legality will be the USA, EU, and China.
Until a decision has been made, I'll continue adding the "free for all except commercial use" license.
Also, copyright is very complicated. If you copy an entire article from a newspaper and paste it into a post on a lemmy instance, which license does it have? That of the newspaper or that of the lemmy instance? If it's the former, then what's the difference if it comes from your brain and not a newspaper? Would it make a difference if the comment were written first on a blog and then copied to lemmy? If it's the latter, then what's the point point of the newspaper or the author ever copyrighting it somewhere else if it can just be overridden?
Next question regarding copyright, since comments are copied and stored on different servers, who would then own the copyright? The lemmy instance sending the comment or the one receiving it?
I'm not a lawyer and probably things aren't clear cut. Might be one in one country and a different thing in another.
My understanding of the Creative Commons licenses is that they are for providing permission to people to use something that they wouldn't be able to otherwise, due to copyright or other issues. I don't think the licenses are capable of limiting what people can do with something if it's already the wild west, or do I have that wrong?
You're free to click the link 🙂 The terms are stated quite clearly.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes .
Oh I clicked the link, mate, and read through a couple links deep. What I'm saying is that my understanding of the license is that it allows permissions for a restricted item, but it does not restrict an item with open permissions. You know what I mean? You need to be a rights holder of something that is protected by copyright or the like, and then you can use this license to open permissions in certain ways, in this case that the item can be used for non-commercial means. So this wouldn't work with stuff on Lemmy, right?
Yeah, that's not how I understand it, mate. It's a copyright license with "some rights reserved" instead of "all rights reserved".
Also text can be restricted. Just because a newpapers publishes an article to public without a paywall, doesn't mean the text is without copyright. Additionally, it's not necessary to be a registered, commercial entity in order to be a rights holder. Somebody who makes a video of an event has the right and ability to sell it to news broadcasters. It doesn't have to a freelancer or a TV studio - any private person may do so.
Of course, this all changes per jurisdiction and we're on the internet, which makes things even more complicated.
load more comments
(6 replies)
People have been telling them that for months.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Now I need to consider Gitea and Codeberg. Thanks for the reminder GitLab.
They're required to take down content following a DMCA takedown request. It's up to the uploader to counterclaim if they're so inclined, at which point they're able to put it back up.
Don't use Gitea, use Forgejo - it's a hard fork of Gitea after Gitea became a for-profit venture (and started gating their features behind a paywall).
Codeberg has switched to Forgejo as well.
Also, there's some promising progress being made towards ActivityPub federation in Forgejo! Imagine a world where you can comment on issues and send/receive pull requests on other people's projects, all from the comfort of a small homeserver.
ActivityPub integration on git remote repos sounds very interesting. Thanks for sharing that, I'll definetely take a look at Codeberg/Forgejo.
Can't wait for forge federation, it's super annoying that I need an account for each individual instance just to report a bug
load more comments
(4 replies)
codeberg also removes piracy related projects... gitea is certainly an option tho
load more comments
(3 replies)
Assholes.
Still mad it isn't named 2zu
At least it seems suyu has devs now though
load more comments
(2 replies)
If someone needs the name of the next fork, I'd suggest "Yutu". (or Ettu)
Is it 100% confirmed now that the DMCA is from Nintendo themselves? I find it weird that they'd go after (initially small) forks when Ryujinx exists.
The Suyu team also hosts their code under https://git.suyu.dev, so I wouldn't exactly call it dead (yet).
There is no confirmation that this came from Nintendo, nor does it list the actual infringing parts like a normal takedown request should.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Codeberg next?
They already have their own Forgejo instance at git.suyu.dev
Just torrented it out of spite. I don't even care about the system...I own one and I don't play it because they got the A and B buttons backwards (that's a joke)
Edit: also, everyone should see this.
they got the A and B buttons backward
I can't tell if you're joking or what
What is arguably even more egregious is having X/Y backwards. On a graph, X is the horizontal axis, Y is the vertical axis. Xbox got it right.
I have permanent Xbox brain, so I'd say they made an oopsie daisy even though I grew up on SNES
I don't know about this one, I have ps/xbox brain as well, but putting confirm on the right side somehow always made more sense to me, even though my muscle memory doesn't agree.
FWIW, the PlayStation was meant to have the Nintendo button layout too. In Japan, O is synonymous with “yes/good” sort of like a check mark (✅) and X means “no/bad”. So the X and O buttons were meant to be used in that way. But western game devs didn’t know that, and designed their games with X as confirm and O as decline.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean, if you're going to scream "I'm doing this!" as loud as you can, it's not a surprise when you get noticed.
