• misk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 month ago

    In my head this is a retribution for financing hackers that attacked Internet Archive and nobody can convince me otherwise

      • misk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        84
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s like Lenin said, you look for the person who will benefit… And, uh… You know, you’ll, uh… You know what I mean.

        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.

          • misk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            1 month ago

            What was wild about this assumption?

              • misk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                30
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • misk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • ronflex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is a conspiracy theory I’m completely behind. With all the moves Nintendo has made recently this was the first thing I thought when Internet Archive was compromised