this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
231 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
1470 readers
19 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):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or just unlock protected media outside from States.
Always comes to mind. Why buy it if you need to crack the DRM someday and become a criminal? Just pirate it in the first place.
I have been listening to SO many audiobooks since getting Audiobookshelve ❤️
From a legal standpoint, is it more illegal to remove DRM or to just download DRM-freed content?
Meta lawyers think the second is fine, BTW.
I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for removing DRM. DRM removal tools are actively sold online with no crackdown. However people keep getting busted here and there for piracy, and piracy sites keep getting shut down.
I think at the end of the day if the copyright holders are getting paid they don't really care, and the police cares about piracy way less than they do.
I remember reading that the most significant impact DRM has is on security research. Individuals don't care about bypassing DRM, but an organization is not going to fund anything involving it because of the legal concern. So if a researcher wants to look into a file format behind DRM, or the DRM mechanism itself, being used as an attack vector, that's not going to get funding.
The defense that companies will make is that they're happy to grant exceptions in these cases, but in practice the company will make the exceptions as narrow as possible to err on the side of maintaining as much control as possible, while a research organization will want to err on the side of avoiding potential grey areas, meaning the exceptions are inevitability too restrictive to allow much of anything to come of them.
There is no "more illegal". One is illegal, the other is not.
Robbing a store is illegal. Murdering someone is also illegal, however one of the two is for good reasons punished much more harshly.
Illegal = against capital interests
Just in case anyone didn't feel like reading the article, here's the last (and imo most important) paragraph:
However, without changing the DMCA, we can't expect to see real, lasting change in this space. Doctorow said as much to me: "What we really need to do is get rid of DMCA 1201, that law that makes it a crime to format shift your media...it's the same law that stops farmers from fixing their tractors, blocks independent mechanics from fixing your car, stops rivals from setting up alternative app stores for phones and games consoles...this law is a menace!"
Good guy Meta. Fighting for us little guys, downloading terabytes of books, defending against lawsuits. Maybe they'll overturn DMCA?
/s
If purchased, fuck you, mine not yours.
Never forget it's legal to make backups.
Unless you "bypass technological measures". Which is a loophole if I've ever seen one.
I luckily live in a country where I may break copy protection if it is to move the content into a format where I can use it as I prefer
Eg I could (and did) legally break copy protection on DVDs to allow me to watch them on my Linux computer
Over here you can even make copies for personal use or sharing with a close group of friends.
I love the unintended consequences of declaring that the internet is to be treated under the same laws as radio broadcasts. Suddenly being allowed to make a recorded copy of anything as long as you yourself create the copy becomes significantly more important.
jaywalking is probably illegal too
And the name is derived from an awful slur too. The history of that is really messed up.
wait really? i didn't know of any of its history.
off to the wikipedia rabbit hole i go
I will never stop being confused by this law. Just crossing the street cannot possibly be illegal anywhere. I'm fully convinced the entire thing is an elaborate joke by the americans.
It's interesting when people are put to the choice. On the one hand they could purchase a book with DRM that they don't actually own. On the other hand, they could look for alternative means by which to obtain the book. And the more the publishers f*** with you, the more you might be inclined to never give them a penny.
So do it anyway, not like they could ever know. It's not a very enforceable thing is it.
Sadly its not doable with Kindle and Linux anymore. I buy my ebooks since I only read indie but I will only do it from Itch or other DRM free sites.
Oh noes
Anyways
i'm glad that there is an(other) program for audible. i like this one better. it automatically converts to a file format i prefer and downloads my books immediately, which is convenient for preorders. besides that, i personally would like to not use the audible app for playback; this is just a personal preference though. i have an audiobook app that works just as well. if anything this would just be me eliminating an app from my devices than anything else.