[gouggoug]

> "Who cares if the words are objectively untrue? We have plausible deniability now that we said them!"

But they are not "objectively untrue". You can argue all day long that you don't believe the author are being truthful, it doesn't make it true.

edit: that being said, in juxtaposition with a copyrighted Marvel image, I could see it being used in court against the author to prove they were all along catering to piracy.

edit2: clearly, I'm not a lawyer

[7bit]

I always find it funny when people with no legal education jump in and defend something that clearly requires legal education. At least with the second edit you made it clear. Thank you.

[gouggoug]

People can have opinions and instincts on a subject matter without a formal education in said matter.

[slg]

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]

Torrented material is not necessarily copyrighted material.

It's not unlawful to use bittorent.

[azalemeth]

A good example to mention here would be etree -- https://bt.etree.org/ -- Which is a complete legal, pro sharing music torrent site. There are others.

[slg]

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?

[lurking_swe]

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.

[slg]

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]

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]

> 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.

[timeflex]

Same argument you're making would be that gun manufacturers know that their product will be used to kill lots of people, and any disclaimer on the package to not murder is silly. Would you make that argument with a straight face or change your argument as a result?

Or does it make sense to put a disclaimer on there, not just from a legal perspective, but to actively discourage those users who haven't made up their mind already? While people absolutely can use their software for pirating content—which is in open debate about the ethics—I've known very few individuals who torrent to actually profit from others material, but I know of plenty anti-piracy advocates who use stolen content for profit.

I've also known bucketloads of people that have paid $50+ for a movie in the theater or $10+ for a rental at home, only realize how badly they were duped by the industry to give money for something that was practically garbage, which they ended up not watching anyway yet the purchase was nonrefundable, which unfortunately happens several times because of all the fake interest in something actually being advertising, which appeals to their desire to fit in. It is often very exploitative.

I've also known a descent amount of people that discovered content they found joy in by torrenting, maybe at the time being depressed... struggling to get out of bed or find inspiration, and as a result improved their condition to become pretty big supporters of those who made that content later on, which they would then gladly pay for thereafter.

Seriously, any actual good artist I've known usually would be the first to encourage someone to pirate their content because they understand that the people that like it will support them, and the people that don't... they have no desire to exploit them.

Like you can claim people shouldn't shoot up heroine, while still giving them clean needles if they're still going to do it.

[gouggoug]

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?

[brookst]

“Disclaimer: this disclaimer is not written in English, it is just a coincidental arrangement of letters that resembles English”