Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53939 readers

347 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

💰 Please help cover server costs.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Can we consolidate identical streaming sites under the same group? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The streaming sites listed on https://rentry.co/megathread-movies-and-tv#streaming have plenty of duplicates. Essentially, they're the same sites with different names/skins but the exact same content.

It would be beneficial to the community if we could consolidate these down into groups according to which ones are the same.

We can still list all of them, but perhaps do it together so people don't waste their time trying out the same site under a different name.

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As the other person sarcastically implied, these sites are intentionally split to make it more difficult to take them all down at once. When one goes down another can pop up, and in the mean time the others are there, on and on forever.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

So are you saying we shouldn't group them together?

Do you know enough about copyright law to know whether or not an online list grouping them together will make it significantly easier for law enforcement to take them down?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I feel like this is attempt of an "akswually" moment.

No. We don't know about copyright law (and I'm sure you don't either) but based on previous precedent, it's not wise to put a everything in one since if something "happens" there will be no alternatives since..the sole source will be gone due to everything being grouped into the sole source.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

it’s not wise to put a everything in one since if something “happens” there will be no alternatives since…the sole source will be gone due to everything being grouped into the sole source.

Umm, what? It's just a list grouping them together.

How are they going to identify the 'sole source' out of that?

I don't think you know enough about copyright law to know whether or not an online list grouping them together will make it significantly easier for law enforcement to take them down.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You clearly know zero abt copyright law if you think law enforcement is legitimately getting involved. 9.99999999 times out 10 it's a letter from a lawyer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I know right? Imagine doubling down on such an L take. And not even a good one

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So how does an online list grouping them together make it significantly easier for law enforcement to take them down? For reference, there is already a list of free streaming sites; it's the list in question. I'm merely mentioning adding further classification for duplicate streaming sites.

It's sad watching the upvote ratios, but I can't say I'm surprised. The internet is full of 🧩's.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Way to go, turning a legitimate question with legitimate answers into an opportunity to insult an unrelated group of people 👍🏽

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not a question of law. It's a question of logistics.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Grouping them together in a list will not affect those logistics.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They're already grouped together in a list that you already linked in the original post

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So what's the problem with adding another group for duplicates?