Hindi Piracy Sites
Cora Devries
I do not want to link to exact sites here (I believe for obvious reasons). But I know a number of content-sharing sites, which were legally deprived of their domain name, and had to move to another one (not all of them, but some moved to .to domain). With that said, I have never heard .to domain to be legally taken away, in alike cases.
Taking control of the registered domain of a site would require multiple organizations to coordinate and would ultimately be a mostly pointless exercise, since the site would just move to a new domain name. ICANN (and all entities in the DNS infrastructure) have no control over the real servers hosting the (allegedly) infringing content, which is what law enforcement or rights holders would try to attack. There's no requirement that a site registered in Tonga has its servers in Tonga, so the fact that the domain is registered there at all is meaningless.
ICANN operates under US law, but that is irrelevant to .to (Tonga's domain). ICANN does not run .to. As for Tonga itself, they presumably could prosecute these piracy sites, but why bother? The cost would fall on Tonga, but none of the benefits.
However, there is one exception to this rule: We do need to comply with laws governing search engines, including CSAM, copyright takedown (DMCA), right to be forgotten (GDPR), and nation-state orders.
There are many pirated book websites, but I will suggest you never use these kinds of websites, as they are illegal. I will recommend you go with legal book publishing websites like Kindle and Shabd.in.
DuckDuckgo has a feature where it shows the official URL of a piracy as the first result (screenshots below) it would be great if this was in Kagi, I'm not sure how they're doing that yet, but one way could be to use the URL from Wikipedia.
Vlad by official sites I mean just that, there are alot of proxies and clones of popular piracy sites that could be unsafe, and search engines remove them (because of DMCA I guess) but not their clones, so the official site never comes up in search.
Vlad said a year ago that Kagi will not get into the politics of copyright-infringing websites, which means they won't remove them, but I'd hope that would also mean not marking piracy sites as "official", which would be a clear endorsement of them.
I don't think that Kagi role could be deciding what it's official, and what it's not; we've had some other discussions about similar issues, and I'd prefer Kagi to simply do a really hard work: offer me a list of results strongly related to my search, listed by priority or by others criteria (I'm not joking, this is a really hard work I think).
So, for me no special mark attached to results, for whatever reason.
(aside, my personal feeling is also that I wouldn't be comfortable using a search engine that cares particularly about piracy, that I don't approve at all...but it's only my point of view)
This does seem like a niche request. If any types of sites shoud have an 'offical' stamp it should probably be the sites of known companies, local government sites etc. We tried doing this in the early days of Kagi but it has proven to be hard than we thought - you can not really tell a site is official. Doing this just for piracy sites doesn't feel right - the users that use them have the tools in Kagi to filter out others and promote the ones they like via built in tools like Block and Prefer.
Vlad You can try the idea with less problematic and widely used website like sci-hub. they have many clones that try to trick people into donating to different crypto wallets than Alexandr's sci-hub one.
I'm not sure what do you mean by scaling here. But you can always rely on community to keep track of sci-hub or simply follow announcements by Alexandra on twitter. I can personally help with that as I usually help maintain new urls for sci-hub for many open source projects like zotero-scihub.
A question asked today, Is the fencer subclass from 'Giger's' homebrew?, links to this fencer homebrew page. The homebrew is perfectly fine, but I think the site contains pirated non-SRD material for D&D 5e. There is no alternate location where the same fencer homebrew has been posted.
As D&D Beyond does not violate any OGL licenses like the source site does, linking here provides access to the information without needing to link to a site that violates a separate site policy. I suggest a sentence posted in a way like what follows:
I think we should allow the link to the homebrew specifically, but not the link to the site's homepage currently in the question because it's not necessary. We should also quote or describe some of the homebrew to identify it when the page inevitably goes dead.
Let's get the most fundamental issue out of the way: do we accept the question? It isn't doing anything wrong itself, it's just asking about a piece of homebrew, so yes we should. That leaves the matter of how to clearly identify and reference the homebrew involved.
To identify it, we need to describe it or quote it. I believe our standard we'd expect from any new question would be to quote part of the homebrew and direct us to it, otherwise we'd close it as unclear, so we should follow that same standard here. Either way that means directing people back to the source, which is that page on that site that contains pirated materials.
Now, our policy about linking to dndtools.eu and similar sites was about proliferating references to piracy sites. It especially came up in the context of people linking to non-SRD materials (because they couldn't find it on SRD sites or on D&D Beyond) which represented an ethical and pragmatic problem: the ethical problem was we're effectively condoning piracy by hosting those references, the pragmatic problem was the site would inevitably become a 404 due to DMCA notices or other takedown actions.
That leaves us with: describe (possibly partly quote) the homebrew and direct back to it like we would expect with any homebrew request, but do nothing more than that. Avoid drawing attention back to the site itself.
Some of my earliest memories of discovering new music involve piracy. I came of age in a time when music was free on the internet, though I wasn't hitting play on a legally-licensed streaming site like Spotify or Apple Music, because they didn't exist at the time. Instead, I was one of millions of people who downloaded music without paying for it via a number of programs, all of which seemed legitimate to somebody who didn't know better (or perhaps to someone who didn't really care to think past appearances and consider the impact on artists and companies in the space), but which were actually bringing the entire music business to its knees.
Napster is now one of the many legitimate streaming services operating in the U.S., competing with the likes of Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal, which is a business model that is certainly different from, but not necessarily in stark contrast to what the founders were going for when they created the first iteration almost 20 years ago. Music is still very cheap, though now, Napster doesn't deal with downloads. Some would argue it is still undervaluing the art, but that's where the industry stands these days
In between the court cases and today, Napster has been through a lot in its struggle to find strong, respectable footing in the music business. It was forced into bankruptcy in the early 2000s, and just as it appeared that German media conglomerate Bertelsmann was set to purchase it for anywhere between $8 million and over $90 million (figures reported at the time vary widely), that buyout was denied by a judge. Best Buy and streaming platform Rhapsody teamed up and take control of the brand logo and name, hoping to capitalize on its remaining popularity. For years, the Napster name was only used in Europe, while Rhapsody tried to survive in America, but after a few years, the latter gave up on its marketing efforts and switched over to the older company's moniker, which was clearly the more recognizable. By that point, some of the wounds had healed, and the word "Napster" wasn't quite as toxic as it had once been.
In the years since he departed the firm he helped found, Sean Parker has made far more money than any of the artists who suffered from his creation. Parker has invested and been involved with a number of startups, and he's even been attached to both Facebook and Spotify. He's now worth well over $2 billion, which must still anger some musicians who had to sit back and watch as millions of people stole their art.
SEVP is a part of the National Security Investigations Division and acts as a bridge for government organizations that have an interest in information on nonimmigrants whose primary reason for coming to the United States is to be students.
The coordinated federal law enforcement operation targeted online services that provided illegal copies of copyrighted works, including television shows and movies. In addition to the cooperative takedown of over 250 piracy sites during Operation 404, Brazilian authorities made five arrests and seized 11 vehicles and one firearm, as well as bulk cash.
The seized domains are in the custody of the U.S. federal government. Visitors to the sites will now find a seizure banner that notifies them that the domain name has been seized by federal authorities and educates them that willful copyright infringement is a federal crime.
The seized domains are in the custody of the federal government. Visitors to the sites will now find a seizure banner that notifies them that the domain name has been seized by federal authorities and educates them that willful copyright infringement is a federal crime.
Three individuals have been sentenced for participating in an international scheme involving the sale of tens of thousands of pirated business telephone system software licenses with a retail value of...
Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., two Internet companies that have long cultivated relationships in Hollywood, are nevertheless placing ads on sites that feature pirated movies, TV shows and music, a new report says.
c80f0f1006