Comment

Comment on Meta admits using pirated books to train AI, but won't pay for it

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like you’re suggesting we side with Meta to put a precedence in which pirating content is legal and allows websites like TPB to keep existing but legitimally? Or are you rather taking the opposite stand, which would further entrench the illegality of TPB activities and in the same swoop prevent meta from performing these actions?

I don’t know if we can simultaneously oppose meta while protecting TPB, is there?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Tedrow@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think what they are saying is that Meta is powerful enough to get away with it. You are attempting to equate two different things.

Meta isn’t using the books for entertainment purposes. They are using another IP to develop their own product. There has to be a distinction here.

source
- TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  We are in agreement, but I was attempting to launch a discussion about how we want the laws to actually be applied and possibly how they should be reformulated.
  
  source
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I’m advocating that if we’re going to have copyright laws (or laws in general) that they’re applied consistently and not just siding with who has the most money.

When it’s small artists needing their copyright to be defended? They’re crushed, ignored, and lose their copyright.

Even when Sony was suing individuals for music piracy in the early 2000’s, artists had to sue Sony to see any money from those lawsuits. Those lawsuits were ostensibly brought by Sony for the artists, because the artists were being stolen from. Interesting that none of that money made it to artists without the artists having to sue Sony.

Sony was also behind the rootkit disaster and has been sued many times for using unlicensed music in their films.

It is well documented that copyright owners constantly break copyright to make money, and because they have so much fucking money, it’s easy for them to just weather the lawsuits. (“If the punishment for the crime is a fine, the punishment is only aimed at the poor.”)

We literally brought US courtroom tactics to a foreign country and bought one of their judges to get The Pirate Bay case out the fucking door. It was corruption through and through.

We prosecute people who can’t afford to defend themselves, and we just let those who have tons of money do whatever the fuck they want.

The entire legal system is a joke of “who has the most money wins” and this is just one of many symptoms of it.

It certainly feels like the laws don’t matter. We’re willing to put down people just trying to share information, but people trying to profit off of it insanely, nah that’s fine.

I’m just asking for things to be applied evenly and realistically. Because right now corporations just make up their own fucking rules as they go along, stealing from the commons and claiming it was always theirs.

source
- TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Of course we should have consistent laws, but which way should we have it? We can either defend pirates and Meta, or none of them, so what are you saying? Unless there’s a third option I’m missing?
  
  source
  - SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Are you really so thick that you think suddenly when Meta is let off the hook they’ll change tack and let Sci-Hub/Libgen/etc off the hook as well?
    
    Like I said elsewhere, I’d be happy to defend Meta in a world where governments aren’t trying to kick altruistic sharing sites off the internet, while allowing selfish greedy sites to proliferate and make money off their piracy.
    
    However, that won’t change if Meta wins this case, it will just mean big corporations can get away with it and individuals and altruistic groups will still be prosecuted.
    
    source