• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months ago

    I’ve always read it that action must be taken, above and beyond speech.

    Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement.

    I could argue that these users collaborated to break the law and did so, but I don’t see that being argued. Fuck I know, INAL.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well in theory you are right. And if you have evidence like in the case of the 2pac murder (he literally wrote about handing the gun over so they could kill him with it), then sure. But to get a subpoena, and let’s use me as an example, you would need to prove that I talked about specifics on how I would or will pirate a stream, and then you would need to find writing of me saying something to the effect of “I did this yesterday” or “I will do this next week” or something very specific like that.

      And this is only to get the information. Then they still need to tie you to it and get enough evidence to start suing, otherwise they might not be able to prove their prima facia case.

      I know it’s scary, but the truth is we have laws to protect us from government overreach and at the same time those keep companies in check as well. Let’s not make it more dramatic than it is.

      Let’s also acknowledge that conspiracy is easy to say in theory and hard to prove in practice, specifically because you need to make sure you can inextricably link 2 defendant together and they are linked in the context of the same instance of a crime. And at that point no one would waste the resources for such a charge. They would rather chase the piracy websites to shut down a whole network for a bit, that’s more efficient. It’s easier to just serve the server providers a cease and desist and have be over with.

      Obligatory IANAL.