3 ms·

A more precise conclusion would be: "This shows that US based companies will actively self-censor to avoid getting sued for copyright infringement. Russian-base

A more precise conclusion would be: "This shows that US based companies will actively self-censor to avoid getting sued for copyright infringement. Russian-based companies don't have to respect US copyright law, so they have no legal obligation to remove infringing content." Yes, copyright infringement is not protected speech in the US and you can be held civilly liable for it. Yes, adversarial countries don't enforce each others' laws. So yes, Yandex is a good place for finding pirated works. But that hardly makes it a bastion of "free speech", it just means that they don't have the same legal risks as Google does.

mystraline 2y ago
DMCA 1201 indicates that I can be held criminally liable, not just civially, for free speech discussing a method of working around, bypassing, or defeating a perceived "technical measure of prevention". That alone is violation of the US govt's 1fa restriction purely in the favor of companies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- refulgentis 2y ago
  AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about whether the government can prevent you from speaking, not there are 0 consequences to all speech. When I think that, I also think, "but isn't it bad to Illegal talking decryption?" Then I think: Law is ambiguous compared to a logical proof, and can only be seen through cases. I resolve that I'll be the first to stand up and scream if they deport someone for simply discussing the academics of DVD decryption, and that's enough to make me feel comfortable saying it's okay the DMCA is used to prevent stealing.
  - sterlind 2y ago
    > AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about whether the government can prevent you from speaking, not there are 0 consequences to all speech. 1A prevents the government from punishing or compelling speech. it's not absolute - slander and death threats aren't protected, for example - but it's pretty broad. you can publish classified documents, for example. the leaker can be punished, but not the journalist. 1A doesn't just protect your right to speak while somehow not protecting you from arrest for your speech. punishment is how all laws are enforced.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      I think the ball is being hidden here while responding to a strawman, here's me waving the ball around high in the air: I agree: other than innumerable exceptions*, 1st amendment says you don't get punished for just speaking something. * slander & death threats are scratching the surface, a brief tour of SEC cases alone would leave you with hundreds. Easiest one for you to see why the simplistic view espoused is blinkered, is probably...idk, disturbing the peace.
      - sterlind 2y ago
        I apologize for strawmanning, I misunderstood your position. Yes, disturbing the peace is such an example, though like disorderly conduct it's somewhat prone to abuse as a charge. My position is that 1A ought to protect the publication and discussion of vulnerabilities, encryption algorithms, software etc. as speech. Like how PGP was first published as a book listing the source code on printed pages. Unless a tool has absolutely no redeeming value besides breaking the law. So I think Switch emulators ought to be protected, if they can be used for some legitimate purpose like benchmarking, homebrew, etc. (minus any copyrighted ROM dumps, of course.) Same with youtube-dlp, same with forensic tools like Ghidra and unpackers.
xp84 2y ago
Yeah somehow I bet that if it’s content highly illegal in Russia it’s going to be very much the other way around.

mystraline 2y ago

DMCA 1201 indicates that I can be held criminally liable, not just civially, for free speech discussing a method of working around, bypassing, or defeating a perceived "technical measure of prevention". That alone is violation of the US govt's 1fa restriction purely in the favor of companies.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
refulgentis 2y ago
AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about whether the government can prevent you from speaking, not there are 0 consequences to all speech. When I think that, I also think, "but isn't it bad to Illegal talking decryption?" Then I think: Law is ambiguous compared to a logical proof, and can only be seen through cases. I resolve that I'll be the first to stand up and scream if they deport someone for simply discussing the academics of DVD decryption, and that's enough to make me feel comfortable saying it's okay the DMCA is used to prevent stealing.
- sterlind 2y ago
  > AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about whether the government can prevent you from speaking, not there are 0 consequences to all speech. 1A prevents the government from punishing or compelling speech. it's not absolute - slander and death threats aren't protected, for example - but it's pretty broad. you can publish classified documents, for example. the leaker can be punished, but not the journalist. 1A doesn't just protect your right to speak while somehow not protecting you from arrest for your speech. punishment is how all laws are enforced.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    I think the ball is being hidden here while responding to a strawman, here's me waving the ball around high in the air: I agree: other than innumerable exceptions*, 1st amendment says you don't get punished for just speaking something. * slander & death threats are scratching the surface, a brief tour of SEC cases alone would leave you with hundreds. Easiest one for you to see why the simplistic view espoused is blinkered, is probably...idk, disturbing the peace.
    - sterlind 2y ago
      I apologize for strawmanning, I misunderstood your position. Yes, disturbing the peace is such an example, though like disorderly conduct it's somewhat prone to abuse as a charge. My position is that 1A ought to protect the publication and discussion of vulnerabilities, encryption algorithms, software etc. as speech. Like how PGP was first published as a book listing the source code on printed pages. Unless a tool has absolutely no redeeming value besides breaking the law. So I think Switch emulators ought to be protected, if they can be used for some legitimate purpose like benchmarking, homebrew, etc. (minus any copyrighted ROM dumps, of course.) Same with youtube-dlp, same with forensic tools like Ghidra and unpackers.

xp84 2y ago

Yeah somehow I bet that if it’s content highly illegal in Russia it’s going to be very much the other way around.