In an AI lawsuit targeting Meta, authors claim the company used BitTorrent to share books from shadow library LibGen with third parties.
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.
I am the reader and I have made the determination that you are wrong. Plenty of people get letters for leeching only - just your presence in the swarm is all it takes, and that’s all they check for before sending you a letter - at least in the US.
Rather narcissistic of you to assume you are our sole audience…
Plenty of people get letters for leeching only -
So what? You can write me a letter saying you have me on camera receiving a thumb drive that contains an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release, and I’ll say “So? There’s nothing illegal about having received an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release. Go talk to the guy who handed it to me.”
Those letters are not formal accusations, and certainly aren’t convictions. There is a reason why they are sending you a letter and not serving a leecher with a copyright lawsuit: They know that that suit would be thrown out when they can’t actually claim a copy was made or distributed.
If that were actually true (it’s not), then explain this:
“Plenty of people get letters for leeching only”
Either they were leeching (downloading) only, in which case the letters claiming infringement are without merit, or they were seeding (uploading) as well, and thus infringing.
(Technically, that’s a false dichotomy… There’s other possibilities I don’t want to get into right now.)
Both things can be true at the same time - you can get a letter for leeching only AND usually when leeching you are also seeding. I don’t know what your issue is with that statement.
The missing “usually” was the issue. When that was added, your statement became true… And it became functionally irrelevant to the issue at hand: Fecesbook took special care to leech only.
This argument has been around since the Napster era. Nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for downloading, and until the law is rewritten to specifically include “receiving” as an offense, nobody ever will.
Of they ever tried to get that law enacted, it would fail unless “personal use” was exempted.
It’s a distinction without a difference, because there is no reason to believe Meta’s word that they blocked seeding when downloading. So whether it’s always or usually makes no difference, because in either case, Meta should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
You seem intent on repeatedly misrepresenting the situation so this conversation is clearly going nowhere.
One of us seems intent on repeatedly misrepresenting the situation. I am inclined to leave the determination of that point to the reader.
I am the reader and I have made the determination that you are wrong. Plenty of people get letters for leeching only - just your presence in the swarm is all it takes, and that’s all they check for before sending you a letter - at least in the US.
Rather narcissistic of you to assume you are our sole audience…
So what? You can write me a letter saying you have me on camera receiving a thumb drive that contains an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release, and I’ll say “So? There’s nothing illegal about having received an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release. Go talk to the guy who handed it to me.”
Those letters are not formal accusations, and certainly aren’t convictions. There is a reason why they are sending you a letter and not serving a leecher with a copyright lawsuit: They know that that suit would be thrown out when they can’t actually claim a copy was made or distributed.
I don’t know if this is news to you or not, but while you are leeching, you are also seeding.
If that were actually true (it’s not), then explain this:
Either they were leeching (downloading) only, in which case the letters claiming infringement are without merit, or they were seeding (uploading) as well, and thus infringing.
(Technically, that’s a false dichotomy… There’s other possibilities I don’t want to get into right now.)
Both things can be true at the same time - you can get a letter for leeching only AND usually when leeching you are also seeding. I don’t know what your issue is with that statement.
The missing “usually” was the issue. When that was added, your statement became true… And it became functionally irrelevant to the issue at hand: Fecesbook took special care to leech only.
This argument has been around since the Napster era. Nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for downloading, and until the law is rewritten to specifically include “receiving” as an offense, nobody ever will.
Of they ever tried to get that law enacted, it would fail unless “personal use” was exempted.
It’s a distinction without a difference, because there is no reason to believe Meta’s word that they blocked seeding when downloading. So whether it’s always or usually makes no difference, because in either case, Meta should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
It seems the readers have spoken.