So not just they pirated them, which may or may not be a crime and where I may or may not be impartial, but they are also leeches who would be banned on any decent torrent tracker of the olden days.
Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn’t illegal without proof of seeding
Submitted 18 hours ago by JustJack23@slrpnk.net to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Podunk@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Truly despicable. Seeding to at least 1 to 1 is the bare minimum of courtesy and humanity. If you dont, its unethical
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Another example of Republican principles. Corporations are protected by laws but not bound by them, while the average citizen is bound by laws but not protected by them.
EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
In group and out group baybee!
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
I want to know how to switch groups.
Mohamed@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
This is irrelevant because Meta should not be tried for this the same as a private individual would be.
The case for torrenting being illegal for private individuals is one or both of:
- Downloading in of itself is stealing.
- Uploading is giving unauthorized access to someone else who otherwise might have had a harder time finding it. Anything else, such as watching, reading, listening, learning, etc. is not illegal (or does not make sense to make illegal). The exception might be publishing. This is rare for private individuals (e.g. using pirated FL studio to make a commercial song).
For corporations, a lot change. Firstly, a corporation downloading a torrent is necessarily making unauthorized material available for some people of the company. It’s like a group of 20 friends all downloaded and uploaded to each other. Secondly, they used this copyrighted material commercially (like playing pirated music in a public night club). Both should be illegal.
However, all of this is still a distraction. The real issue is using copyrighted materials to train commercial AI. Does Meta require permission from copyright holders to make AI based on their work? The law is grey on this, and desperately needs regulations.
Just my thoughts.
Geodad@lemm.ee 10 hours ago
AI has already stolen everyone’s work. The internet is officially a free for all.
molten@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Of course that fuck isn’t a good seeder. Leech.
singletona@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
So where’s the MAFIAA? Here you go guys, literal industrial scale piracy.
Or are you afraid to go after someone that isn’t a teenager in their parent’s back room?
Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
Fighting Meta will cost easy more money than fighting a teenager.
singletona@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
I am aware. I was simply demonstrating they were never about money, simply bullying people who couldn’t fight back.
Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
The real shit deal is if there was a ruling against Meta in this, it would still be worse for everyone because there would be precedent to litigate against people who only consume pirated content (which has been tried in several countries and found to be legal)
singletona@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
…Oh god…
you described a situation where i want Meta to win…
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 16 hours ago
Also I love how they they don’t say they didn’t seed, just say there is no proof
FireTower@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
This is a motion to dismiss not an answer. That’s how those work. It is linked to by the journalist in the article.
daikiki@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
It’s not illegal to download books without yourself offering them for upload. What’s illegal is when you feed those books into your reality devouring content monster and it outputs all that copyrighted content in a slightly different order and you profit off that content vomit.
brightandshinyobject@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
So it’s okay if we download content from well known online repositories?
TheFogan@programming.dev 18 hours ago
I mean isn’t that at least some extent technically true to a level.
I mean if we weren’t talking a shitty corporation to begin with. If this were say, a 20 year old mcdonnalds worker pirating game of thrones.
IMO the bigger concept is still rather than if they got it… defining whether using that data after the fact is legal. I mean hypothetically speaking lets just say they bought 1 copy of each of the millions of books, or bought used copies, or say had a machine that could scan every book in a library. IMO the issue shouldn’t be whether or not anyone managed to download the books in their pure form afterwards. The focus should be the AI trained on their books, is going to be distributing portions of their book to millions of people, and any potential profits of such will be going to meta and uncredited to the original authors. The idea that meta’s involvement in torrenting may have let little timmy get a copy of his text book 15 seconds faster… shouldn’t be the driving force here.
Ulrich@feddit.org 18 hours ago
I mean isn’t that at least some extent technically true to a level.
It’s completely true. That’s why a lot of people don’t seed. And why your ISP won’t bother you if you don’t.
phillycodehound@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Double Standard!
plaineatin@lemmy.today 11 hours ago
That’s true, it’s not really your problem in most areas if you don’t seed, basically scraping them. If a legal person comes your way it’s not good but for facebook they have lawyers. They will just say not our problem, we never hosted it, just scraped it. not many people would decide to go against facebook lawyers bc they can pay to drain you.
kingblaaak@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
You wouldn’t download car…and then upload its stats to a centralised system
b3an@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Rules for thee and not for me, plus we PROFIT off of it to boot. But none of you guys can do that. Only for Richys.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
Facebook got
FBI_README.txtat the root of their DC++ share.timewarp@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Well good news if they are successful in their arguments it can set precedent to make piracy legal.
Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
That’s what I’m saying. Let the Zuck cook.
hperrin@lemmy.ca 17 hours ago
According to the law (the thing that determines if something is or isn’t illegal) it’s illegal. Zuck is a criminal.
latenightnoir@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
So, piracy is legal if you don’t distribute? What the fuck is Zuck smoking?
ulterno@programming.dev 18 hours ago
Well, that’s how it tends to be in most places.
You don’t get caught for downloading; you get caught for uploading.
umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 18 hours ago
That’s just confirmation bias. The buyer/downloaders don’t get caught is just because there are too many of them and going after the distributor is an easy target.
latenightnoir@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Eh. Makes sense from the perspective of protecting profits, I guess, because the actual thing which bothers them is the volume of lost potential customers…
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Elitism. He is of the belief that he is better than you, and doesn’t live in the same world as you.
regrub@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
And the copyright owners have no problem with them profiting from derived works that were made using pirated content?
rain_worl@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
you can download it, but you can’t use it. so restrictive :(