[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.

[ac29]

> Same argument you're making would be that gun manufacturers know that their product will be used to kill lots of people

Not a great example because very few guns will be used to kill people whereas an overwhelming majority of the users of this software will use it to view pirated material.

[number6]

Cars and speed limits then? Most if not all cars will violate the speed limit - without them it is also virtual impossible to break them

[fp64]

Cars primary purpose which the majority of people are using them for is not breaking the speed limit.

[number6]

While most people may not see breaking the speed limit as the primary purpose of their car, the way cars are designed, especially marketed and used in everyday life normalizes and even encourages exceeding posted speeds. This makes speeding not an edge case, but a central, majority use case in practice.

Ok, that's not actually what I believe, I don't even know if you could make this argument. This is just for the arguments sake, sorry.

[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?

[slg]

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.

[gouggoug]

The original statement is not just "we do not facilitate copyright infringement". It has a whole lot of other words.

If your original comment is solely about this revised 6 words statement, then, yes, you are correct, the claim is objectively untrue.

I'm no mind reader though, I assumed you were talking about the whole thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[slg]

What a weird comment. If you surround a lie with enough truth, it makes the lie disappear?

[brookst]

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