The whole issue is that no Discord terms of service were violated here.
Really? I’m not a lawyer, but…
TOS:
We reserve the right to block, remove, and/or permanently delete your content if it is in breach of these terms, our Community Guidelines, our other policies, or any applicable law or regulation, or if it creates risk for Discord or negatively impacts the experience or interests of other Discord users to continue to make it available.
Community guidelines:
24. Do not share content that violates anyone’s intellectual property or other rights. This includes sharing or selling game cheats or hacks. (See our Unauthorized Copyright Access Policy for more.)
Given that there’s a court order stating these tools violated Nintendo’s intellectual property rights, not sure how you can draw the conclusion that this is somehow not a violation of the TOS
They didn’t share the content in Discord. It’s a huge distinction.
If we were to interpret this the way it was applied in this case, pretty much all servers would have to be removed. You shared an image you don’t own the copyright to, server nuked. You shared the video you don’t own the copyright to, server nuked. You shared the link to some tool that allows you to download a video you down have a copyright to, server nuked.
And there isn’t a court order “stating these tools violated Nintendo’s intellectual property rights” since the case was settled outside of court.
They could threaten to sue discord for hosting copyrighted content, even if they expect to lose it doesn’t matter, the goal is to make discord close the channel and it worked.
Cost/benefit analysis, you’ll probably win the lawsuit, it will still cost you a shit load of money in the meantime and you’re fighting against a company that has enough money to stop all its activities for a decade and still come out with enough funds to resume activities as if nothing happened. Or you can just ban one community from your platform.
Right, if they host it, but they don’t. That’s the difference between what happened with GitHub/GitLab.
And they can’t sue without the case having any merits. Meritless lawsuits also legally known as frivolous lawsuits are thrown out before even discovery phase with attorney fees awarded and the moron lawyers getting sanctioned.
Really? I’m not a lawyer, but…
TOS:
Community guidelines:
Given that there’s a court order stating these tools violated Nintendo’s intellectual property rights, not sure how you can draw the conclusion that this is somehow not a violation of the TOS
They didn’t share the content in Discord. It’s a huge distinction.
If we were to interpret this the way it was applied in this case, pretty much all servers would have to be removed. You shared an image you don’t own the copyright to, server nuked. You shared the video you don’t own the copyright to, server nuked. You shared the link to some tool that allows you to download a video you down have a copyright to, server nuked.
And there isn’t a court order “stating these tools violated Nintendo’s intellectual property rights” since the case was settled outside of court.
The only one I can see that could be applied to the situation is “risk for discord” if Nintendo threatened them with a lawsuit.
Under which grounds? For a threat to work, it has to have some merits.
They could threaten to sue discord for hosting copyrighted content, even if they expect to lose it doesn’t matter, the goal is to make discord close the channel and it worked.
Cost/benefit analysis, you’ll probably win the lawsuit, it will still cost you a shit load of money in the meantime and you’re fighting against a company that has enough money to stop all its activities for a decade and still come out with enough funds to resume activities as if nothing happened. Or you can just ban one community from your platform.
Right, if they host it, but they don’t. That’s the difference between what happened with GitHub/GitLab.
And they can’t sue without the case having any merits. Meritless lawsuits also legally known as frivolous lawsuits are thrown out before even discovery phase with attorney fees awarded and the moron lawyers getting sanctioned.
Hosting isn’t necessary, providing access is enough, otherwise The Pirate Bay wouldn’t have had to change location again and again.
Hosting is required under DMCA.
Edit: Misread the part about The Pirate Bay.
Previous comment
And The Pirate Bay was banned and blocked hundreds of times, they have many proxy sites for that reason.
And the fact that they didn’t host the content didn’t keep them from being raided and from seeing their servers being seized.