Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn’t illegal without proof of seeding
Meta’s copyright defense may hinge on court ignorance of torrenting terminology.
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.
Truly despicable. Seeding to at least 1 to 1 is the bare minimum of courtesy and humanity. If you dont, its unethical
Seeding shouldn't be done on ratios - being the only one seeding 10 seasons of a tv show and getting it to 0.4:1 is way more helpful than seeding the same movie as everyone else and getting to 20:1, you're noy contributing anything there other than decreasing your bandwidth for things that aren't already at 100,000% availability
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:
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.
Of course that fuck isn't a good seeder. Leech.
So, piracy is legal if you don't distribute? What the fuck is Zuck smoking?
Well, that's how it tends to be in most places.
You don't get caught for downloading; you get caught for uploading.
Using a similar logic to distribution via DVDs. Only the seller gets into trouble. The buyer does not.
Elitism. He is of the belief that he is better than you, and doesn't live in the same world as you.
And the copyright owners have no problem with them profiting from derived works that were made using pirated content?
you can download it, but you can't use it. so restrictive :(
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.
Also I love how they they don't say they didn't seed, just say there is no proof
This is a motion to dismiss not an answer. That's how those work. It is linked to by the journalist in the article.
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?
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)
....Oh god...
you described a situation where i want Meta to win.....
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.
So it's okay if we download content from well known online repositories?
Double Standard!
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.
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.
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.
You wouldn't download car....and then upload its stats to a centralised system
Well good news if they are successful in their arguments it can set precedent to make piracy legal.
That’s what I’m saying. Let the Zuck cook.
Facebook got FBI_README.txt at the root of their DC++ share.
According to the law (the thing that determines if something is or isn’t illegal) it’s illegal. Zuck is a criminal.