5 ms·

Is this legal isn’t a useful question. The better question is how likely are you to get sued? With civil lawsuits it doesn’t matter if it’s legal you can be sue

Is this legal isn’t a useful question. The better question is how likely are you to get sued? With civil lawsuits it doesn’t matter if it’s legal you can be sued and harassed by lawyers if you get on their radar.

legohead 1y ago
No need to sue. Send a cease and desist and your average hacker like OP will take it down in a hurry...
- daneel_w 1y ago
  In this case not even a cease-and-desist was needed. Just seeing 1.7M peers crying out in the void for company was enough. Living in a country overly friendly with Hollywood and its money, I do understand him.
  - account42 1y ago
    Yes, prime example of a chilling effect where the fear of a lawsuit stops people from engaging in perfectly legal activities. It's unfortunate that copyright law does not concern itself with collateral damage like this.
    - Suzuran 1y ago
      This is not collateral damage, this is the intended effect - decreasing their competition, legal or otherwise.
- account42 1y ago
  I think the point is that you can't count on that and need to assume that you are going to attract actual lawsuits. DMCA provides easier take down options for copyright owners but AFAIK does not compel them to make use of those options before going to court.
  - GTP 1y ago
    I think companies will try with a strongly worded letter first, as this would save them money over straight going to court. But I get that the risk may not be worth it for many people, I myself would be very scared if I received a letter threatening a lawsuit for a ridiculous amount of money, even knowing that they are exaggerating the scale of damages just to scare me.
- driverdan 1y ago
  Unfortunately what they will do is file a DMCA with the hosting provider. Most will immediately shut you down, none of them defend their customers.
  - autoexec 1y ago
    Considering the obscene fines courts have granted the media industry who claim losses with zero basis in reality it's only to be expected. Would you be willing/able to defend your customers when faced with billions in fines and a court system that has been aggressively favoring your opponent?
bilekas 1y ago
I’m not sure if that’s true actually, you might get a takedown notice, but to sue, and maybe I’m wrong but you have to claim damages, all op has to do is not announce out? IE he can see the peer pool but they don’t announce the peer list.
- dymk 1y ago
  The RIAA doesn't have to sue to make OP's life miserable. They have enough lawyers on the payroll to drown him in perfectly legal demand letters. Go one step further and assume the demand letters are harassment - what's OP going to do, sue the RIAA?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 1y ago
    Nahh, for a bunch of annoying letters take them to small claims court. Cheap for you, expensive for them, and you win if they don’t show up.
    - dymk 1y ago
      haha, no, this is not their first rodeo
      - Retric 1y ago
        Sure, but that’s why they avoid this kind of harassment in the first place. You made a hypothetical assuming they would do something they wouldn’t because it puts them at risk.
    - account42 1y ago
      This is a cool feel good theory but can you show an example of this working?
      - 1y ago
ranger_danger 1y ago
> Is this legal isn’t a useful question Why do you say that? I think even seemingly "useless" questions can lead to valuable discussions and insights... and it might also be possible that your perspective is not the only valid one. What's useful (or not) to one person is not always the same for others.
- diffeomorphism 1y ago
  You may want to adjust your LLM settings. Your post seemingly dropped everything but the first sentence from the context window and then wrote vapid fluff that makes no sense in context.
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    I do not use any LLM, thanks
chaboud 1y ago
This is definitely the right pragmatic take. A lawyer friend of mine once laid it out for me: "in litigation, if you go to court, even if you win, you lose". The reality is that court sucks, and getting sued sucks for all but the ultra-wealthy (who can absorb the cost). For those of us with less than $100MM, court is a universe to be avoided.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >A lawyer friend of mine once laid it out for me: "in litigation, if you go to court, even if you win, you lose" In my country we have a phrase for this exact scenario: "the punishment is the process". When the government or a powerful person wants to fuck with you, all they have to do is drag you endlessly through the court system, even knowing they'll loose. Because the experience will be 100x more painful for you to win than it is for them to loose. It's what the UK government did to the postal workers in the Fujitsu scandal.
  - koakuma-chan 1y ago
    Is there a limit how many concurrent lawsuits can be thrown at one person?
    - tristor 1y ago
      No, not technically, however in the US there are the SLAPP statutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
- busterarm 1y ago
  Don't underestimate this. My family members sued each other over a small inheritance. 5 kids fighting over a couple million dollars. Case has dragged out across almost 4 decades. Lawyer fees dwarfed the size of what was being fought over several times over. Some family spent time in jail for contempt of court... Family members then put up all their personal assets to keep fighting. Then they lost and were faced with a judgment that left them destitute well into their retirement years with no way to earn new money. Some family members are still appealing and fighting adjacent court battles (property seizure, etc). This process has consumed the last decades of their lives and everything they worked their whole lives for. Not only would I say never end up in court, I'll extend you one further. Never get the government involved in your personal relationships.

legohead 1y ago

No need to sue. Send a cease and desist and your average hacker like OP will take it down in a hurry...

daneel_w 1y ago
In this case not even a cease-and-desist was needed. Just seeing 1.7M peers crying out in the void for company was enough. Living in a country overly friendly with Hollywood and its money, I do understand him.
- account42 1y ago
  Yes, prime example of a chilling effect where the fear of a lawsuit stops people from engaging in perfectly legal activities. It's unfortunate that copyright law does not concern itself with collateral damage like this.
  - Suzuran 1y ago
    This is not collateral damage, this is the intended effect - decreasing their competition, legal or otherwise.
account42 1y ago
I think the point is that you can't count on that and need to assume that you are going to attract actual lawsuits. DMCA provides easier take down options for copyright owners but AFAIK does not compel them to make use of those options before going to court.
- GTP 1y ago
  I think companies will try with a strongly worded letter first, as this would save them money over straight going to court. But I get that the risk may not be worth it for many people, I myself would be very scared if I received a letter threatening a lawsuit for a ridiculous amount of money, even knowing that they are exaggerating the scale of damages just to scare me.
driverdan 1y ago
Unfortunately what they will do is file a DMCA with the hosting provider. Most will immediately shut you down, none of them defend their customers.
- autoexec 1y ago
  Considering the obscene fines courts have granted the media industry who claim losses with zero basis in reality it's only to be expected. Would you be willing/able to defend your customers when faced with billions in fines and a court system that has been aggressively favoring your opponent?

bilekas 1y ago

I’m not sure if that’s true actually, you might get a takedown notice, but to sue, and maybe I’m wrong but you have to claim damages, all op has to do is not announce out? IE he can see the peer pool but they don’t announce the peer list.

dymk 1y ago
The RIAA doesn't have to sue to make OP's life miserable. They have enough lawyers on the payroll to drown him in perfectly legal demand letters. Go one step further and assume the demand letters are harassment - what's OP going to do, sue the RIAA?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 1y ago
  Nahh, for a bunch of annoying letters take them to small claims court. Cheap for you, expensive for them, and you win if they don’t show up.
  - dymk 1y ago
    haha, no, this is not their first rodeo
    - Retric 1y ago
      Sure, but that’s why they avoid this kind of harassment in the first place. You made a hypothetical assuming they would do something they wouldn’t because it puts them at risk.
  - account42 1y ago
    This is a cool feel good theory but can you show an example of this working?
    - 1y ago

ranger_danger 1y ago

> Is this legal isn’t a useful question Why do you say that? I think even seemingly "useless" questions can lead to valuable discussions and insights... and it might also be possible that your perspective is not the only valid one. What's useful (or not) to one person is not always the same for others.

diffeomorphism 1y ago
You may want to adjust your LLM settings. Your post seemingly dropped everything but the first sentence from the context window and then wrote vapid fluff that makes no sense in context.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  I do not use any LLM, thanks

chaboud 1y ago

This is definitely the right pragmatic take. A lawyer friend of mine once laid it out for me: "in litigation, if you go to court, even if you win, you lose". The reality is that court sucks, and getting sued sucks for all but the ultra-wealthy (who can absorb the cost). For those of us with less than $100MM, court is a universe to be avoided.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>A lawyer friend of mine once laid it out for me: "in litigation, if you go to court, even if you win, you lose" In my country we have a phrase for this exact scenario: "the punishment is the process". When the government or a powerful person wants to fuck with you, all they have to do is drag you endlessly through the court system, even knowing they'll loose. Because the experience will be 100x more painful for you to win than it is for them to loose. It's what the UK government did to the postal workers in the Fujitsu scandal.
- koakuma-chan 1y ago
  Is there a limit how many concurrent lawsuits can be thrown at one person?
  - tristor 1y ago
    No, not technically, however in the US there are the SLAPP statutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
busterarm 1y ago
Don't underestimate this. My family members sued each other over a small inheritance. 5 kids fighting over a couple million dollars. Case has dragged out across almost 4 decades. Lawyer fees dwarfed the size of what was being fought over several times over. Some family spent time in jail for contempt of court... Family members then put up all their personal assets to keep fighting. Then they lost and were faced with a judgment that left them destitute well into their retirement years with no way to earn new money. Some family members are still appealing and fighting adjacent court battles (property seizure, etc). This process has consumed the last decades of their lives and everything they worked their whole lives for. Not only would I say never end up in court, I'll extend you one further. Never get the government involved in your personal relationships.