- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
In one of the AI lawsuits faced by Meta, the company stands accused of distributing pirated books. The authors who filed the class-action lawsuit allege that Meta shared books from the shadow library LibGen with third parties via BitTorrent. Meta, however, says that it took precautions to prevent ‘seeding’ content. In addition, the company clarifies that there is nothing ‘independently illegal’ about torrenting.
You must log in or register to comment.
Facebook was leeching? No way…
We didn’t inhale, so it’s not illegal for us. ~ZuckFuck
I doubt anything legal would come from this, but it does progress the conversation about piracy:
“You wouldn’t download a car would you? Cause zuck would without sharing”
Death penalty for leechers.
thats like the only thing that would’ve made this better bro
Is there a way to change the torrent client’s name\version so you appear in a list of seeds as Mark Zuckerberg?
Certainly, but it’s not like that’ll get him in trouble or anything
It’d certainly encourage me to up my torrenting game so this shit appears 24\7 at rather weird uploads around the globe.
Somehow that makes it even worse in my opinion
dirty hit and run behavior, motherf****ers
This.
the company clarifies that there is nothing ‘independently illegal’ about torrenting.
Ah yes, I’m sure this strawman defense will hold up well for them in court.
It will probably work. Because, you know, money.
If it does work, does that then mean they’ve effectively declared torrenting to be legal? Or at least as long as you claim not to have seeded?
You hope! Laws will still apply to us peasants
Yes your honor I lit up but didn’t inhale.
makes me think of the loopholes christian teenagers come up with to claim they’re totally not having premarital sex.
More like “Yes your honor I lit up and inhaled, just got a huge ass lungful, but I didn’t pass”
Overthrow democratic nations 👍 Theoretically the owning class loosing a few bucks 😱
Thanks Meta.
So they’re inconsiderate assholes and leeches.
Now now, they’re not just inconsiderate assholes and leeches.
They’re inconsiderate nazi oligarch assholes and leeches.
Hey now, they aren’t Nazis. Nazis at least believe in something, even if it’s something terrible.
I know it’s their legal defense and all, but it’s not like any of us thought they would seed in the first place. Their business is only about taking for profit, not sharing or giving anything back.
I don’t think anyone expected them to seed on purpose but its not inconceivable that they’d accidentally let some seeding through, or not consider it in the first place.
Haha, what a bunch of scumbags. They can"t even seed back when pirating.
We really need to round up all of Meta’s executive directors, seize all their assets (every last cent) and require them to mandatory two decade live-in community service as a junior custodian at hospice centres or infectious disease hospitals.
Not for thus of course, more like knowingly enabling genocide in Myanmar and so on.
Where now are the copyright trolls that sued regular students for millions of dollars for downloading 30 songs?
Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful.
Let me see:
- At least 100 million of books pirated
- infringements were willful
So, a 15k billion dollars fine seem appropriate to give to Meta AND criminal sentences to all the c suite.
Or: apply the same rules to regular people and allow unlimited copyright violations without consequences
Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs.
Your example is exactly why meta didn’t seed.
It’s a weak defense because the clients still exchanged metadata with other clients, plus there’s the big issue of using the copyrighted works for their own profit, and not just archiving/preservation/personal use
It’s a solid defense, since the lawsuit’s about the sharing of the books. The metadata of the torrents isn’t part of the relevant IP, and how they used the content they downloaded is a separate issue.
Exchanging metadata does not violate copyright. I can stand on the sidewalk in front of MPAA headquarters, asking people to provide me with a copy of the latest blockbuster without infringing on anyone’s copyright. I can even offer to buy it.
So long as they are not further copying or distributing the work, they are not infringing on copyright.
Using it for their own profit is only an issue if they are claiming a fair use exemption. They aren’t claiming fair use. They don’t need to claim fair use, because requesting and receiving works is not a prohibited act under copyright law. The prohibited acts are copying and distribution, which can only be performed by the sender, not the receiver.
I was actually hoping to see that as a defense. The principal thing that copy enforcement corps always cite is ‘we downloaded a copy from their IP, thus they made a copy and distributed the work’.
If this works as a defense here then in effect they make direct download portals legal for the users at least.
You’re forgetting that they’re a rich corporation, and you’re not. They’ll get away with the defense, but even if it set a precedent, copyright groups can still sue you until you’re broke to make an example of you, even if you didn’t legally do anything “wrong”.
As long as you can sue someone for any reason without repercussions, then it’s always going to be the people with more money who come out on top. Always. Wining a lawsuit doesn’t mean you’re not still financially destroyed and driven into poverty for the rest of your life.
this is actually the way it works in australia: downloading content is not illegal; sharing content is illegal
thus as a consumer, usenet is fine
obligatory ianal
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal? Or usenet?
I think any progress here is mostly in principle, as I don’t think there’s a big practical risk to downloading only as it stands today, though I don’t follow things as closely as I used to and could be mistaken.
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal?
Nobody in the US has ever been busted on copyright grounds for downloading anything, regardless of source. The law does not provide for enforcement against downloading; only uploading.
No, but even a baseless civil suit costs a lot of time and money to fight.
That’s what I thought. I don’t think their defense succeeding here really gets us anything new.
It doesn’t get us anything new. It does put a big, gaping hole in the FUD that has been spread about the supposed “illegality” of downloading.
