this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
85 points (98.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

68490 readers
672 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

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] leoj@piefed.social 42 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I think this is good, right? Feels like the first time the supreme court has done something I agree with in a while...

[–] cm0002@europe.pub 28 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's very good, but it's also one of those things where they did the right things (essentially preventing forcing an ISP to be a enforcer of sorts) for the wrong reasons (Cox had more money)

[–] Wizard3964@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 days ago

ISP has more money than music industry

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

wth does "without intent" mean? Like, ooops my AI accidentally 1.41 TB of books and movies?

[–] cm0002@europe.pub 23 points 6 days ago

Intent meaning they're not an ISP that caters to piracy

E.g. you start an ISP called Pirate Connections, advertise that you cater to piracy and have specific piracy friendly features (optimized for torrents, gang planks, minimal logging etc) is bad