4 ms·

> it's not evidence that the IA did anything wrong in any moral or social sense. The fact our society is held hostage, and that information is imprisoned, by en

> it's not evidence that the IA did anything wrong in any moral or social sense. The fact our society is held hostage, and that information is imprisoned, by entities like the MAFIAA is not a justification for this outcome I don't think that IA's position was morally or ethically wrong; I would wager a lot of people here would feel the same way. Unfortunately, for this case, morality and ethicality aren't the law. And the law was extremely known, and predictable in which side it would fall on here. This outcome was very, very predictable. IA gambled; possibly their existence; on astronomical odds that they could force a confrontation against the backdrop of the pandemic, and win. Maybe this was the best chance that they would ever get, in which case it was worth trying. But I don't think the anti-copyright revolution was ever going to be triggered by IA giving out free books.

anigbrowl 4y ago
You can't have a revolution without breaking any laws. Gene Sharp and the advocates of nonviolence have really done a number on a lot of people's heads, giving them the idea that fundamental changes can be accomplished without any disruption or conflict through manifesting a large but peaceful number of people in a symbolic location. The only thing that gets you is a management shakeup. Real revolutions are messy.
- misnome 4y ago
  > You can't have a revolution without breaking any laws I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. If you had asked me beforehand whether this specific action would trigger a copyright revolution, I'd have said no. I'm not trying to say that they should have followed the (obvious) law, I'm theorising that perhaps IA was willing to gamble their existence that this _would_ trigger that. Sci-hub probably had a much better chance of causing change, but feels like it might also have lost that chance with the multi-year pause to appease the Indian court. Various blocks also seem to have been effective; it's hard to find a working mirror.
  - Zuiii 4y ago
    Does anyone know why they complied with the indian court and not the many other places where they were sued or ordered to cease operation? If anything, I would have expected india to be the last country they would comply with since their courts are known to be laughably delusional when it comes to what they consider to fall under their jurisdiction. I mean I can see the benefit in Telegram acquiescing to their delusion (the potential of becoming a wechat in their large market is far to inciting), but I don't see what benefit it would be for scihub.

anigbrowl 4y ago

You can't have a revolution without breaking any laws. Gene Sharp and the advocates of nonviolence have really done a number on a lot of people's heads, giving them the idea that fundamental changes can be accomplished without any disruption or conflict through manifesting a large but peaceful number of people in a symbolic location. The only thing that gets you is a management shakeup. Real revolutions are messy.

misnome 4y ago
> You can't have a revolution without breaking any laws I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. If you had asked me beforehand whether this specific action would trigger a copyright revolution, I'd have said no. I'm not trying to say that they should have followed the (obvious) law, I'm theorising that perhaps IA was willing to gamble their existence that this _would_ trigger that. Sci-hub probably had a much better chance of causing change, but feels like it might also have lost that chance with the multi-year pause to appease the Indian court. Various blocks also seem to have been effective; it's hard to find a working mirror.
- Zuiii 4y ago
  Does anyone know why they complied with the indian court and not the many other places where they were sued or ordered to cease operation? If anything, I would have expected india to be the last country they would comply with since their courts are known to be laughably delusional when it comes to what they consider to fall under their jurisdiction. I mean I can see the benefit in Telegram acquiescing to their delusion (the potential of becoming a wechat in their large market is far to inciting), but I don't see what benefit it would be for scihub.