5 ms·

I’m sorry but it is objectively untrue that this software does not “facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form”. What is the pu

by slg 1y ago

I’m sorry but it is objectively untrue that this software does not “facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form”. What is the purpose of this project if it is not to “facilitate” watching torrented material?

gouggoug 1y ago
Torrented material is not necessarily copyrighted material. It's not unlawful to use bittorent.
- slg 1y ago
  This is more plausible deniability talk. No one has suggested that all torrent use is illegal. But this software absolutely “facilitates” illegal use cases. A gun can be used legally, it would still be ludicrous to say that guns never “facilitate” murder.
  - gouggoug 1y ago
    I think it's fair to say that the software itself could/does facilitate illegal uses cases. But with that line of argumentation, then all software facilitates illegal use-cases just by existing. The statement "We do not endorse, promote, or facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form", might be poorly written with regards to the fact that just by existing this torrent streaming program _does_ facilitate piracy, but I don't think this was your original argument.
    - slg 1y ago
      > I don't think this was your original argument. I’ll be honest, I really don’t know what argument you think I’m making or that you yourself are making. The truth here is that this software will overwhelmingly be used in an illegal manner. The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer. Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening. Your comments here seem to just be continuing that charade. I’m not even condemning this software or illegally pirating movies and TV shows. I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer.
      - brookst 1y ago
        “Disclaimer: this disclaimer is not written in English, it is just a coincidental arrangement of letters that resembles English”
      - gouggoug 1y ago
        TL;DR: I am nitpicking on the use of "objectively untrue" and the implication this disclaimer serves no purpose. > The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer. This is the idea I'm pushing back against. Yes, you are very likely correct in your assessment that the creators know that their software will be used illegally. No, you are incorrect, in saying this is 1- "objectively untrue" and 2- implying the statement might _not_ have some protective qualities. To take a purposefully exaggerated analogy: you can believe all day long someone committed murder, it still doesn't make it true. You can argue all day long the authors aren't being truthful, it still doesn't make it true. > Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening I'd agree with this, and, add that, at the same time, (assuming the USA here) it's probably placed there for legal reasons (whether it factually matters legally or not is a question for an actual lawyer, which, objectively, I am not). > I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer. It feels a bit silly, yes, and at the same time... needed?
        slg 1y ago
        You're shifting what I used “objectively untrue” to describe. Here's what I originally said, “the words are objectively untrue”. I was not describing the thought process of the creators because that is obviously unknowable to us. I was instead describing the accuracy of “the words” claiming that the software does not facilitate copyright infringement. That claim is “objectively untrue”. The software obviously does facilitate this, which you seemingly already agreed to being true. The authors' thoughts on the matter don't impact the objective truth. Also, I don't know what compelled you to speculate on the legal value of the disclaimer while also admitting you have no actual insight into that issue. That feels like posting just to post. You're not even baselessly speculating that I'm wrong, you're baselessly speculating that I might be wrong.
- lurking_swe 1y ago
  i’m not judging anyone that’s interested in the tech here. it’s pretty neat. but do you think we were all born yesterday? Are you suggesting _most_ people using a bittorrent client are downloading public domain movies like sherlock holmes shorts? Or linux ISO’s for fun? You are technically correct. But it doesn’t take a genius to understand that the disclaimer here is a total joke.
- azalemeth 1y ago
  A good example to mention here would be etree -- https://bt.etree.org/ https://bt.etree.org/ -- Which is a complete legal, pro sharing music torrent site. There are others.
  - slg 1y ago
    Once again, the existence of legal use cases does not invalidate the existence of illegal use cases. Do you genuinely believe the primary use case of this software by a majority of its users will be to download this type of legal content?

by slg 1y ago

gouggoug 1y ago

Torrented material is not necessarily copyrighted material. It's not unlawful to use bittorent.

slg 1y ago
This is more plausible deniability talk. No one has suggested that all torrent use is illegal. But this software absolutely “facilitates” illegal use cases. A gun can be used legally, it would still be ludicrous to say that guns never “facilitate” murder.
- gouggoug 1y ago
  I think it's fair to say that the software itself could/does facilitate illegal uses cases. But with that line of argumentation, then all software facilitates illegal use-cases just by existing. The statement "We do not endorse, promote, or facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form", might be poorly written with regards to the fact that just by existing this torrent streaming program _does_ facilitate piracy, but I don't think this was your original argument.
  - slg 1y ago
    > I don't think this was your original argument. I’ll be honest, I really don’t know what argument you think I’m making or that you yourself are making. The truth here is that this software will overwhelmingly be used in an illegal manner. The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer. Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening. Your comments here seem to just be continuing that charade. I’m not even condemning this software or illegally pirating movies and TV shows. I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer.
    - brookst 1y ago
      “Disclaimer: this disclaimer is not written in English, it is just a coincidental arrangement of letters that resembles English”
    - gouggoug 1y ago
      TL;DR: I am nitpicking on the use of "objectively untrue" and the implication this disclaimer serves no purpose. > The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer. This is the idea I'm pushing back against. Yes, you are very likely correct in your assessment that the creators know that their software will be used illegally. No, you are incorrect, in saying this is 1- "objectively untrue" and 2- implying the statement might _not_ have some protective qualities. To take a purposefully exaggerated analogy: you can believe all day long someone committed murder, it still doesn't make it true. You can argue all day long the authors aren't being truthful, it still doesn't make it true. > Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening I'd agree with this, and, add that, at the same time, (assuming the USA here) it's probably placed there for legal reasons (whether it factually matters legally or not is a question for an actual lawyer, which, objectively, I am not). > I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer. It feels a bit silly, yes, and at the same time... needed?
      - slg 1y ago
        You're shifting what I used “objectively untrue” to describe. Here's what I originally said, “the words are objectively untrue”. I was not describing the thought process of the creators because that is obviously unknowable to us. I was instead describing the accuracy of “the words” claiming that the software does not facilitate copyright infringement. That claim is “objectively untrue”. The software obviously does facilitate this, which you seemingly already agreed to being true. The authors' thoughts on the matter don't impact the objective truth. Also, I don't know what compelled you to speculate on the legal value of the disclaimer while also admitting you have no actual insight into that issue. That feels like posting just to post. You're not even baselessly speculating that I'm wrong, you're baselessly speculating that I might be wrong.
lurking_swe 1y ago
i’m not judging anyone that’s interested in the tech here. it’s pretty neat. but do you think we were all born yesterday? Are you suggesting _most_ people using a bittorrent client are downloading public domain movies like sherlock holmes shorts? Or linux ISO’s for fun? You are technically correct. But it doesn’t take a genius to understand that the disclaimer here is a total joke.
azalemeth 1y ago
A good example to mention here would be etree -- https://bt.etree.org/ https://bt.etree.org/ -- Which is a complete legal, pro sharing music torrent site. There are others.
- slg 1y ago
  Once again, the existence of legal use cases does not invalidate the existence of illegal use cases. Do you genuinely believe the primary use case of this software by a majority of its users will be to download this type of legal content?