4 ms·
> Yet all those songs certainly have illegal copies already being distributed on the internet. So what was the actual harm being prevented here? There's a huge
by crazygringo 9mo ago
> Yet all those songs certainly have illegal copies already being distributed on the internet. So what was the actual harm being prevented here?
There's a huge difference between a ton of individual torrents or files you need to individually search for, identify, of varying quality, that may be mislabeled and have other sorts of quality issues, and which in no way approach "all" music...
...vs a single, shockingly comprehensive repository of uniformly high-quality music which does, in fact, approach "all" music.
If I wanted to start a pirate music service, it would become vastly easier with this particular repository. Many orders of magnitude easier. That's the actual harm.
- queenkjuul 9mo agoLossless pirate archives also still exist if you know where to look. Not saying you're wrong, but from a truly material angle, someone dedicated to finding an archive with enough music to start a pirate site need only join one of the existing lossless pirate sites and copy theirs. I don't see how Anna's making it easier negates the fact that it can already be done
- s1artibartfast 9mo agoI dont think the idea that it can be already done matters though. You just have to show harm or intent to harm, and the archive had it. Selective prosecution isn't a strong defense in civil court.
- johnnyanmac 9mo agoFor a normal case, maybe. for a TRO, it does matter. And they got a TRO the same day they asked on Jan 2nd. That's an oddly concerning move.
- s1artibartfast 9mo agoI think it is pretty standard if the other party doesnt show up in court. Did they?
- queenkjuul 9mo agoOh yeah i figure the courts have all sorts of ways of fucking over whoever they please. I just mean logically - they haven't enabled anything that could'nt already be done, not really