Replying to @⁨OwOarchist@pawb.social⁩

It wouldn’t, which is why I roll my eyes every time I see a bill demanding what a VPN must do.

The only way for them to actually enforce this through VPNs is to block VPNs. Which, presumably, they’ll do at some point, but with an exception list for companies paying the right license fee to use a Government Approved VPN.

Which, obviously, will be full of security flaws, and likely won’t be HIPPA compliant or other compliances etc, etc.

Replying to @⁨Burninator05@lemmy.world⁩

I don’t know if you’re familiar with how VPNs work, but it’s basically like a computer in the other country is sharing its internet connection with you.

So let’s imagine that things are reversed, and you’re a VPN provider in the United States and you’re sharing your internet connection with some computers in another country, like Saudi Arabia, for example.

And just to be clear, you conduct no business in Saudi Arabia. You’re just sharing your internet connection with people from there. You don’t have any associates in Saudi Arabia, and you have no intention of ever going to Saudi Arabia.

And let’s say that Saudi Arabia passed a law that said VPN providers had to block some kind of content, like maybe banning all access to content about your favorite band.

How is this going to affect the VPN service you provide to the other computers?

Replying to @⁨JcbAzPx@lemmy.world⁩

The thing that would make us better isn’t knowing; it’s doing. It makes sense to say that someone who knows better but behaves no better is literally no better.

Rationality is sensitivity and responsiveness to reasons, and plenty of folks are unresponsive to normative facts.

At least 70% of humans are just dangerously intelligent animals. Like imagine a polar bear that can drive and trade stocks. That’s the average person.

Replying to @⁨scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech⁩

Proton, mullvad, air VPN, depending on threat case. NordVPN for torrenting specifically, but not as good for privacy etc.

The most important thing is to check who owns the VPN (as the previous commentor said, stay away from Kape tech) and where it’s based (e.g., 14 eyes), as well as independent security audits and the company’s public history with government requests.

Replying to @⁨dmtalon@lemmy.world⁩

i think you have to set up DoH with unbound to make it not be in cleartext? I dunno honestly I’m a dummy, but I’m fairly sure that it’s pretty tricky to get it totally secured. I guess I don’t understand why you can’t use ubound recursively but have its root.hints pointing as something like quad9 instead of all the actual root authoritative dns servers, theres like 13 of them and more than half are the US government.

Replying to @⁨ramius345@sh.itjust.works⁩

I was going to say, this only stops children with no techie friends. Pirates use seedboxes already. Everyone else knows how to double hop.

You also don’t technically need DNS to access websites but even if you did the constant influx of fake slop and scam sites filling search results of Google and Bing should be some indication of the difficulty of maintaining and enforcing a blacklist.

But this is why many switch to new systems like IPFS or return to old ones like Usenet.

Replying to @⁨rafoix@lemmy.zip⁩

This is a special kind of irony: someone is lambasting one group for piracy while simultaneously advocating for another group to do essentially the same thing for their own benefit.

They’re not really prosecuting people for piracy, so why would they go after large corporations?

I’m not supporting the idea of pirating data for LLM training. I’m just saying: don’t be a hypocrite simply because a group of people you dislike is doing the same thing you’re doing, for the same reasons.

Replying to @⁨mechoman444@lemmy.world⁩

They’re not really prosecuting people for piracy, so why would they go after large corporations?

One group is poor individuals and the other is a billion/trillion dollar industry that’s basically gloating about pirating at an industrial scale.

Going after individuals for downloading a 4Gb rip of a movie doesn’t make any financial sense but it makes a lot more sense going after companies downloadinh millions of gigabytes and have more than enough money to pay damages

So it’s strange to continue attacking individuals while covering your eyes at the big companies

Replying to @⁨NotSteve_@lemmy.ca⁩

I’m not attacking anyone, and I’m not covering my eyes to anything.

You basically just proved my point: going after every individual or corporation that pirates isn’t really feasible.

I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy in the stance itself. It doesn’t matter who’s doing the pirating; the underlying justification is the same. If it’s acceptable for an individual to pirate something because the company no longer sells it, then you can’t suddenly declare that same reasoning unacceptable when a corporation does it for essentially the same reason.

You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. Either you apply the same standards of criticism and ridicule to individuals and corporations, or your argument doesn’t hold water.

You’re either okay with piracy as a principle, or you’re not. You don’t get to create one standard for individuals and another for corporations simply because you prefer one of them.

Replying to @⁨mechoman444@lemmy.world⁩

Either you apply the same standards of criticism and ridicule to individuals and corporations, or your argument doesn’t hold water.

That’s exactly what I’m doing though. Imagine standing there with a bullhorn shouting that you just downloaded every available movie, show, research paper, news article, etc and you’re now profiting significantly off of it, as an individual. You’d get sued into oblivion if you weren’t sent to prison first.

I still think pirating is okay and that the US twisting the world’s arm to enforce the DMCA is fucking BS but if we have to suffer with it then the billion dollar companies should have to too

Replying to @⁨NotSteve_@lemmy.ca⁩

Privacy is not ok. People are stealing intellectual property. You can dress it up however you want, but that doesn’t change what is actually happening.

At some point, you have to stop convincing yourself that you’re somehow not breaking the law simply because enforcement is difficult or unlikely. Let’s not beat around the bush: I’m completely comfortable with what I’m hypothetically doing when I hypothetically pirate media, and I fully understand exactly what is taking place. I’m not pretending otherwise.

And let’s be honest, people aren’t exactly hiding it. They’re openly discussing it, building massive communities around it, sharing methods and resources, and publicly arguing for why they think it’s justified. Look at the conversation we’re having right now. The difference is that, in practice, prosecuting every individual pirate or every corporation doing something similar, is generally not worth the resources required.

But that’s a question of enforcement, not legality.

Look, man. You don’t have to morally agree with piracy, and you don’t have to pretend it’s something other than what it is. Just admit to yourself what is actually taking place when someone pirates something: they’re obtaining and using copyrighted material without the copyright holder’s authorization. Whether you personally think that’s justified is a completely separate question.

Replying to @⁨LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world⁩

He is getting paid. Not only has the Motion Picture Association contributed to political campaigns but it very recently gave awards and money to two politicians that promote their interests

For specifics on donations see: myreptracker.com/…/motion-picture-association-inc…

In 2025, the MPA gave Chris Coons its Industry Champion Award and also honored Darrell Issa. MPA CEO Charles Rivkin described Coons as a “trusted partner” and praised Issa as a “true partner” on matters important to film and television.

It’s very basic corruption in broad daylight, and it’s pretty common in US politics today. As far as I know, you can’t prove corruption in court without some form of wiretapping or paper trail, which is trivial for them to avoid. So they’ll never get in trouble for being absolute utter dog shit human beings.

Replying to @⁨Mustachius_Grumpius@thelemmy.club⁩

political theater. won’t happen because it’s unenforceable.

  • VPNs operate outside of federal control
  • ISPs leverage DNS blocking to censor which is laughable
  • DNS exists outside of the US

if this does happen, IF, it has nothing to do with IP rights or protecting Americans. it has everything to do with censoring what the majority of common Americans read online. this is the first step towards blocking news outlets that won’t regurgitate whitehouse directives.

Replying to @⁨GreenKnight23@lemmy.world⁩

  • ISPs leverage DNS blocking to censor

And blocking the IP address of the site in question, as well. That’s why so many “illegal” sites jump around IP addresses like a flea on a hot griddle. They’re trying to remain accessible whenever the ISP prevents direct access.

Because if you block the IP address, blocking DNS is superfluous and performative – it’s just window dressing for better optics towards politicians who don’t understand tech. DNS censorship trivially bypassible by using custom DNS servers that aren’t affected by the censorship, while IP blocking hits everyone who is under that ISP regardless of their DNS settings - they need a VPN to bypass IP blocking.

Replying to @⁨Psythik@lemmy.world⁩

When I was messing around with my VPN, I was looking at translated news from Germany, France and Spain and they all have more or less different data usage policies. It’s interesting but at the same time, you can just go on a news website that a country mainly uses and translate it.

Interstingly though, when I used a VPN, it changes all the typical homepage shortcuts on Google chrome to what Germany, France and Spain uses for the main shortcuts.

Replying to @⁨Mustachius_Grumpius@thelemmy.club⁩

So just browse piracy sites with Tor. Bittorrent clients might struggle to access blocked trackers, but the DHT can’t really be censored IIUC.

EDIT: It might even be possible to configure Bittorrent clients to use Tor specifically for communication with trackers (but not for the bulk P2P chunk transfers).

EDIT2: Not sure why I’m getting downvoted. Maybe the next person to downvote could reply and explain why.