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.
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.
No, sorry, burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If you’re suing, you have to prove the defendant’s culpability; you can’t simply assume it.
Thomas Paine said that he who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, lest he set a precedent that will reach back to himself.
Your argument here seems to be “fuck meta”. Does you opposition remain when it us an actual pirate bring accused? If so, fuck you. If not, why are you trying to lose this for the rest of us?
My argument is that just because the courts may give Meta the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t mean that you need to as well. It shouldn’t be any surprise to you that you’re getting the response you’re getting here when you seem to be bending over backwards to find any excuse to give Meta a pass.
And no - wanting Meta to be fully investigated on the basis that they most likely did break the law has no bearing on wanting to oppress the enemy lol.
Fuck meta, this isn’t about meta, this is about the legal fact that downloading is not infringement. Just because you don’t like this particular downloader does not mean we have to set the precedent that downloading is infringement.
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.
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.
No, sorry, burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If you’re suing, you have to prove the defendant’s culpability; you can’t simply assume it.
I’m not a court so absent any actual evidence from Meta, I can assume whatever I want. Meta can suck a dick.
Thomas Paine said that he who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, lest he set a precedent that will reach back to himself.
Your argument here seems to be “fuck meta”. Does you opposition remain when it us an actual pirate bring accused? If so, fuck you. If not, why are you trying to lose this for the rest of us?
My argument is that just because the courts may give Meta the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t mean that you need to as well. It shouldn’t be any surprise to you that you’re getting the response you’re getting here when you seem to be bending over backwards to find any excuse to give Meta a pass.
And no - wanting Meta to be fully investigated on the basis that they most likely did break the law has no bearing on wanting to oppress the enemy lol.
Fuck meta, this isn’t about meta, this is about the legal fact that downloading is not infringement. Just because you don’t like this particular downloader does not mean we have to set the precedent that downloading is infringement.