[gouggoug]

TL;DR: I am nitpicking on the use of "objectively untrue" and the implication this disclaimer serves no purpose.

> The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer.

This is the idea I'm pushing back against.

Yes, you are very likely correct in your assessment that the creators know that their software will be used illegally.

No, you are incorrect, in saying this is 1- "objectively untrue" and 2- implying the statement might _not_ have some protective qualities.

To take a purposefully exaggerated analogy: you can believe all day long someone committed murder, it still doesn't make it true. You can argue all day long the authors aren't being truthful, it still doesn't make it true.

> Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening

I'd agree with this, and, add that, at the same time, (assuming the USA here) it's probably placed there for legal reasons (whether it factually matters legally or not is a question for an actual lawyer, which, objectively, I am not).

> I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer.

It feels a bit silly, yes, and at the same time... needed?

[slg]

You're shifting what I used “objectively untrue” to describe. Here's what I originally said, “the words are objectively untrue”. I was not describing the thought process of the creators because that is obviously unknowable to us. I was instead describing the accuracy of “the words” claiming that the software does not facilitate copyright infringement. That claim is “objectively untrue”. The software obviously does facilitate this, which you seemingly already agreed to being true. The authors' thoughts on the matter don't impact the objective truth.

Also, I don't know what compelled you to speculate on the legal value of the disclaimer while also admitting you have no actual insight into that issue. That feels like posting just to post. You're not even baselessly speculating that I'm wrong, you're baselessly speculating that I might be wrong.

[gouggoug]

The original statement is not just "we do not facilitate copyright infringement". It has a whole lot of other words.

If your original comment is solely about this revised 6 words statement, then, yes, you are correct, the claim is objectively untrue.

I'm no mind reader though, I assumed you were talking about the whole thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.