Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54390 readers

217 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Uptobox Bid to Resurrect File-Storage Service Fails in French Court. (torrentfreak.com)

submitted 2 months ago by ModerateImprovement to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] conciselyverbose 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Instead, the court went along with evidence presented by rightsholders, including a report compiled by a representative from the Association for the Fight against Audiovisual Piracy (ALPA).

The report revealed that ALPA uploaded a copyright infringing file last year to test the takedown policy. While the uploaded content could indeed be removed, the representative was able to re-upload the same content later, without any countermeasures.

Fuck this shit.

The idea that a site is obligated to proactively scan user content is gross.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Reminds me of the "Physician, heal thyself" quote, except "Website, police thyself" with the added bonus that a bunch of pro-copyright lobbyists wrote all the anti-piracy laws that you are now obliged to enforce on their behalf.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think this does not mean it has to scan the file directly, but maybe keep all the hashes to files that were taken down and stop them from getting uploaded again. This would also be fairly unintrusive, but could add a few false positives.

[–] conciselyverbose 5 points 2 months ago

That is not acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

This would also be fairly unintrusive, but could add a few false positives.

If this was the case, we'd have a whole bigger problem on our hands.

Even considering the birthday problem, the chance for such collisions is astronomically small. Especially if you combine it with the file size that you always have anyways.

In fact I'd guess that sites like these already do exactly that in order to avoid hosting duplicates (if not handled at the file system level).