755
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
755 points (99.5% liked)
Games
32640 readers
781 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nintendo was responsible for that?
The Dude
„Who benefits the most” from attacking Internet Archive? Big copyright holders whose content was distributed via Internet Archive. The reason given by the group claiming responsibility is so silly I don’t believe it.
[edit] I’ll add to this comment so that I don’t have to reply to everyone specifically.
I don’t believe that if you wanted to attack USA (as people claiming responsibility did) you’d attack it in a way that benefits big corporations most. It sounds like a flimsy distraction from true perpetrators.
That's what I'm seeing, unless a documented source eventually shows up.
What’s that source? You mean anonymous group claiming responsibility being reported in media?
Conjecture is not documentation.
yes, I assume that
What was wild about this assumption?
There’s motive and circumstances. Nintendo opened every possible front in the last year or so. Now this happens. Even if not related to IA specifically this definitely looks like retribution.
Also, please read my first comment again. I think I made it clear it’s speculation.
Ignorance isn’t something to be proud of.
Agreed. Sense of humour is.
You can believe what you want, but there's absolutely no way you would be correct. Any large company sponsoring a cyber attack, if caught, would be nailed to the wall and made an example of. The extreme risks are simply not worth the comparatively small reward of reducing a tiny fraction of piracy.
A more realistic and reasonable avenue would have been to sponsor the companies going after IA for copyright infringement as a result of them loaning out unlimited digital copies of books without DRM.
This is a very valid point, yet companies do shady stuff all the time and some even get caught via subpoenas and such. Nintendo can do it in a way that will never be noticeable on their books for sure.
For those curious, this account on Xitter claimed responsibility. Their stated reasons are indeed ridiculous, but I don't at all have a hard time believing that people can be that misguided.