[Ragnarork]

> In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction

Because apparently U.S. courts and judges can do that. The more this is ignored by third-parties outside of the U.S., the better.

I'm not against international cooperation regarding common rules (I'm rather for), but the current context certainly doesn't designate the U.S. as a responsible custodian/enforcer of such rules.

[ezst]

Cory Doctorow made a whole CCC speech about this.

[cooprh]

His talks are all fantastic

[dzogchen]

https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-a-post-american-enshittification...

[BiteCode_dev]

It's infuriating but practically true. I had a few services that received illegitimate DMCA notices that I ignored. They were either blatantly fraudulent, automated junk or just not applicable to the law of the country where I'm hosting.

They escalated to either my hosting or my domain name provider, who then threatened to cut me off for not complying. No discussion with them would work in my favor. I had to comply with this BS. I got cut off several times for completely wrong reasons.

They don't care. It's not worth the legal risk for them. I'm not big enough.

So in the end, the US CAN indeed do that.

[direwolf20]

Anna's Archive has clearly discovered, by trial and error, which hosts work and which don't.

"DMCA ignored hosting" isn't even illegal. Ignoring a liability shield doesn't make you actually liable

[toyg]

Did you engage any lawyer/solicitor? Companies don't care about individuals, but they do fear lawyers.

[NegativeK]

My experience with lawyers helping me respond to other lawyers is "Stop interacting with that person".

Unless I'm spending way more money, I'd expect any company to fire me as a client as fast as legally possible if I threatened them with a lawyer.

[mattmaroon]

The US, or any nation state?

[gib444]

Immediately makes me think of the vitriol here on HN for the UK trying to enforce their age verification law outside their borders. Will the principle stand, or will it reveal that "USA is always right" is a common held belief

[pjc50]

USA claiming global jurisdiction over internet copyright matters goes back a long way. The case that "radicalized" me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd. , which was 25 years ago!

The other such case establishing global financial jurisdiction, often cited by cryptocurrency adopters, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg - "Pokerstars".

It's wild to read "the U.S. Congress passed UIGEA to extend existing gambling laws into cyberspace. The law made processing payments for online gambling a crime" in the light of how prevalent online gambling is now in the US mainstream, with sports betting, Kalshi, Polymarket and so on.

[Aurornis]

This isn't a unique USA thing. Many countries will allow lawsuits against international entities if you can demonstrate harm within the jurisdiction.

Practically speaking it doesn't matter much when small countries do this because it doesn't mean much, other than maybe the owners of the country can't travel there any more. It hits headlines when the USA does it because being barred from traveling to the USA or working with US companies causes a lot of problems.

[reactordev]

The laws of the US have always been crafted to protect the interests of the elite, not the industrious.

[mystraline]

Sure has.

And even policing protects local monied interests.

One case was someone who used their bike as their vehicle put a tracker on it. Was stolen. Tracker dutifully said where it was. Went to police station, they did absolutely shit. They were handed the bike receipt, token receipt, and realtime log. They DGAF.

Years ago, worked at Walmart. They illegally edited my hours and thieved $100 and change. Put in police report, was told "CIVIL MATTER".

But if you stole $100 from a register, off to jail you go.

The laws protect monied interests and the elite, not the masses.

[Aurornis]

> Years ago, worked at Walmart. They illegally edited my hours and thieved $100 and change. Put in police report, was told "CIVIL MATTER"

Too late now, but for future reference for others: Wage theft reports should go to your state's department of labor. Every state is different but from what I've seen these offices have people who are hungry to catch real wage claims. Companies listen up when the state department of labor comes knocking.

[reactordev]

used to be the case before the government was gutted.

[booleandilemma]

Life makes a lot more sense when you realize the government, or at least this government, doesn't actually care about you.

[dpoloncsak]

Realistically, what did you want to happen? The cop to check the computer logs and see who changed your hours? Was it even someone in the store, or from corporate? Jurisdiction can get messy...

Proving someone intentionally changed your hours as opposed to a mistake or software bug is not the police's job. It quite literally is a civil crime and belongs in civil court, not criminal. I don't even think most police are trained in civil laws. (Atleast, not in my state?)

Catching someone who takes money out of a cash register is their job. That's textbook theft, a criminal activity.

I hate cops as much as the next guy, possibly more, but that just doesn't seem like their area

FWIW, the government is still (supposedly) working to resolve your issue...your tax dollars are still at work. Judge, Public Defender, blah blah blah....It's just not the job of a first responder

[mystraline]

I want the same if the company had called the cops for a theft of $100 from a drawer.

If the company's rep calls, I go to jail.

If I call, diddly shit happens.

[Aurornis]

> Immediately makes me think of the vitriol here on HN for the UK trying to enforce their age verification law outside their borders

The UK and US aren't unique in this regard. The concept of piracy has been commonly treated as a topic with universal jurisdiction that expands beyond borders, going back to the time when piracy meant people on boats in international waters. I'll be honest that I don't know if or how those laws correspond to digital piracy, but countries have long considered international piracy to be something their domestic courts can go after.

Practically speaking you can always choose to ignore it if you don't have offices or assets in that country and you're okay with never traveling there for the rest of your life. You also have to avoid countries with mutual extradition agreements because many countries will offer to extradite for certain crimes with the expectation that the other country will return the favor.

The UK age verification enforcement isn't a good comparison because the UK's overreach extends even to instances where UK citizens are geoblocked. Trying to enforce your country's laws on an operation in a different country which does not even serve your country is something else. For a recent example look at the online depression forum that is being threatened by the UK even though they've geoblocked UK users - Immediately makes me think of the vitriol here on HN for the UK trying to enforce their age verification law outside their borders

[wahern]

FWIW, "piracy" of copyrighted works and maritime piracy are completed unrelated legal concepts. Piracy in this context is just a rhetorical euphemism intended for moral framing, and doesn't have any meaningful legal import, notwithstanding that lawyers and judges use it like everybody else.

Relatedly, see Stallman's essay, Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html While courts understand "piracy" is euphemistic, the phrase "IPR" has been quite successful in shaping legal theories and jurisprudence.

EDIT: The correct word here isn't euphemism, but dysphemism. TIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemism

[cwillu]

Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder.

[throw0101d]

> Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder.

"Piracy" as a term for copying others' creative works dates back to the 1600s, and is in a 1736 dictionary:

> The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorised copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright.[8] In 1668 publisher John Hancock wrote of "some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies" in the work A String of Pearls: or, The Best Things Reserved till Last by Thomas Brooks.[10]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#%22Pira...

To act shocked and offended that the term points to two different activities in 2026 is non-sensical: that ship has sailed long ago.

[imtringued]

What ship?

You're saying there is a moral obligation to be incorrect.

If anything this is the type of mistake where it's never too late to make things right. 10 billion years could pass and you would still be doing people a favour by calling things by their names.

[cwillu]

> To act shocked and offended that the term points to two different activities in 2026 is non-sensical: that ship has sailed long ago.

“Equivocation is a logical fallacy and rhetorical tactic that uses ambiguous language, specifically switching the meaning of a key term or phrase within an argument to make it appear valid when it is not. It involves using one word to mean two different things, often to intentionally deceive, evade, or create ambiguity.”

[fluffybucktsnek]

I think you're missing the point. Piracy, "digital" or real, has always been something that extended beyond borders. They are alleging this is probably due to governments doing said equivocation, in digital piracy case's, although I think it has more to do with the international treaties.

[cwillu]

No, I'm certain that you are: “piracy” doesn't exist as a coherent umbrella term that contains both naval piracy and copyright infringement, and the latter has certainly not “always” been enforced beyond borders.

[MarsIronPI]

I've been against the UK trying to shove its regulations everywhere and I'm just as against the US doing it.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't understand why it makes you think of that, this is a completely different situation. If Anna's Archive were an upstanding site run by a known operator in compliance with UK law, I would definitely be highly critical of this ruling. But it's actually an anonymously run site that violates most countries' copyright laws and is blocked in the UK.

[GolfPopper]

>an upstanding site run by a known operator

Like Open AI?[1] Or the United States government?[2] While this may not be what you intend, it seems you're suggesting that "upstanding" and "known" parties (i.e. participants with wealth and influence) ought to be above the law.

1. https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/news/study-claim...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_copyrighted_works_by_th...

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't see what wealth and influence have to do with it. I think that if Website X is owned by a resident of, operated within the borders of, and complies with the laws of Country A, Country B should not try to bully the operator into changing the site. They can order domestic ISPs to block it if they want, or they can not do that if their citizens value Internet freedom.

If the site doesn't comply with the laws of Country A, or if the website operator hides so nobody can figure out which country is Country A, then it's an entirely different story.

[stuffn]

Copying intellectual property is not piracy. This term was co-opted by big industries to insure the cash cattle continue to pay. Piracy has a very specific sting to it. This was a deliberate choice. We don't call burglary "piracy", yet if we relax the definition enough to include IP theft, it is also piracy.

GabeN also had the wrong take in that it's a "supply problem" or whatever nonsense he said. GabeN is in fact an industry plant and owns one of the strictest IP protection platforms on the market. Why people buy on steam when they can ban you for almost anything and take everything you've ever rented (you dont own anything on steam). Thousands of dollars of games gone with a ban. In any normal world this would be tantamount to grand theft and a small business owner would actually face real prison time for it.

You can't "steal" something that isn't gone when it's stolen. If I walked into a house, took a necklace, and left an exact unaltered copy I'd at best be charged with a lesser crime that didn't include theft. But if you copy movies/music/software you're liable to have your entire life absolutely financially and possibly criminally ruined.

The government of the US is hardly a government for the people, by the people. It's strictly designed to enrich the few and consume "human resources".

[GolfPopper]

>Copying intellectual property is not piracy. This term was co-opted by big industries to insure the cash cattle continue to pay.

Without weighing in on the merits or morals of copying intellectual property, the term 'piratical booksellers' was used in a British House of Commons speech by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1841. (The speech itself is superb and well worth reading. I included one passage below.)

"At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot… Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create."

https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr...

[TomasBM]

While I also find various approaches and reasons behind IP governance dumb, copying IP is piracy. In practice, copying some things is unlawful, regardless if we think it shouldn't be or if piracy once only referred to naval burglary.

If you copy a book in a bookstore, or leave a perfect synthetic copy of a natural diamond you take, you'll likely be charged with something. Digitally, that's much a clearer legal charge because copying is easier. So, neither is theft, but that doesn't make it lawful either.

There are valid reasons for enforcing IP rights digitally, because "all content should always be free" doesn't pay the bills when all you (can or want to) do is produce content. No existing society agrees that content producers should be subsidized, so in a society dependent on "earn for yourself", content producers shouldn't be punished.

But the punishment does exceed the severity of the "crime" by a lot, I agree.

[MrDrMcCoy]

Piracy started as a term directly related to theft. Its use in the modern age for copying is also an attempt to frame the activity as theft, even though there is no action that can reasonably described as theft. Copying leaves the original right where it was, so no theft has taken place. I'm not saying that violating copyright is OK, just that the terms we are using to describe the wrongness are willfully dishonest. The punishments are also not fit for the crime, but that's another matter entirely.

[TomasBM]

Look, I'm not even claiming that piracy is a good term for it, or that the association between theft and copying wasn't pushed in pro-IP campaigns. But for the past 20 (or 30?) years, piracy has been the word everyone uses for this type of activity.

My point is: even if you changed the word, and explained the difference to everyone who couldn't distinguish between (A) literal theft of a physical object, and (B) a replication of some sequences of binaries, you're still not addressing the real question.

And the real question is: Why shouldn't an author have an option to protect their IP, physically or digitally? What's the difference between copying a physical book and a digital book without author's approval, from the point-of-view of an author trying to get paid for every copy?

I'm personally a fan of alternatives to IP-based earnings and earning enforcement, but I don't see how that helps any author trying to make a living from their content in the world where there are very few alternatives.

[MrDrMcCoy]

My imperfect solution would be to implement some sort of compulsory licensing system that lets people copy at will for reasonable prices, and comes with a more sensible penalty system for violators. People should get paid for their work, but the system we have for that now sucks for everyone but the middlemen / IP squatters.

[MarsIronPI]

I'm pretty sure piracy also includes threats to phisical security by the pirates. No such thing here. Let's not dilute the meaning of the word.

[triceratops]

> If I walked into a house, took a necklace, and left an exact unaltered copy I'd at best be charged with a lesser crime that didn't include theft

Idk what law books you've been reading but this isn't true.

[fluffybucktsnek]

To call Steam one of the strictest IP protection platforms is so laughably innacurate, it's basically wrong. Its DRM is trivial to bypass (specially compared to others), and I have yet to see a case where they banned someone for something stupid in a way that made them lose access to their library.

Otherwise, I agree with the spirit of your comment.

[patrickmcnamara]

I never understand these positions. How do authors make money selling books if someone can legally copy it and give it out for free?

[newer_vienna]

Commissions, grants, advertisements, sponsorships, donations, teaching... There's already an enormous ecosystem of artists and authors who work outside of the copyright realm (blog writers, substackers, social media artists, youtube creators, soundcloud rappers) and who make money enough to pursue their passion and whose business model would be totally unchanged if copyright were abolished entirely tomorrow. When their work is downloaded or shared or copied or linked or edited or remixed they appreciate it and see it as a multiplication of their artistic impact.

[TomasBM]

It's not necessarily incompatible: authors can make money in ways that don't depend on enforcing IP or even the number of books sold. For example, Patreon, Kickstarter, government subsidies, payment for number of books written, grants, etc.

However, all those other ways are more difficult to set up, and can be risky for the funders, so IP enforcement is the least-worst solution.

[compass_copium]

I dunno, the same way they did for decades with public libraries?

[Dylan16807]

Did you take an argument that it's not theft and change the words?

Unlike theft, the word piracy is fine. Nobody thinks you're talking about ships, and the "specific sting" is negligible.

[alex1138]

This isn't so relevant but Steam is actually very annoying to use. No easy settings to disable some of the overlays. I played Final Fantasy 7 and it was some gimped out graphics version, although SE (Square Enix) is also a kind of litigious company

[nemomarx]

Steam only adds one overlay (which is pretty easy to toggle off). if you have another graphic change or overlay it's the devs or publisher who added it

There's a per game toggle for their UI overlay basically and you just need to uncheck a box

[zzzoom]

> GabeN also had the wrong take in that it's a "supply problem" or whatever nonsense he said.

It is a supply problem. Steam regional pricing and game passes have demolished piracy in countries where people wouldn't have dreamed of paying for a game 15 years ago. And so did Netflix for a while with video, but then everyone had to jump on the bandwagon and now piracy is flourishing again.