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 was actually hoping to see that as a defense. The principal thing that copy enforcement corps always cite is ‘we downloaded a copy from their IP, thus they made a copy and distributed the work’.
If this works as a defense here then in effect they make direct download portals legal for the users at least.
You’re forgetting that they’re a rich corporation, and you’re not. They’ll get away with the defense, but even if it set a precedent, copyright groups can still sue you until you’re broke to make an example of you, even if you didn’t legally do anything “wrong”.
As long as you can sue someone for any reason without repercussions, then it’s always going to be the people with more money who come out on top. Always. Wining a lawsuit doesn’t mean you’re not still financially destroyed and driven into poverty for the rest of your life.
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal? Or usenet?
I think any progress here is mostly in principle, as I don’t think there’s a big practical risk to downloading only as it stands today, though I don’t follow things as closely as I used to and could be mistaken.
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal?
Nobody in the US has ever been busted on copyright grounds for downloading anything, regardless of source. The law does not provide for enforcement against downloading; only uploading.
Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful.
Let me see:
At least 100 million of books pirated
infringements were willful
So, a 15k billion dollars fine seem appropriate to give to Meta AND criminal sentences to all the c suite.
Or: apply the same rules to regular people and allow unlimited copyright violations without consequences
It’s a weak defense because the clients still exchanged metadata with other clients, plus there’s the big issue of using the copyrighted works for their own profit, and not just archiving/preservation/personal use
It’s a solid defense, since the lawsuit’s about the sharing of the books. The metadata of the torrents isn’t part of the relevant IP, and how they used the content they downloaded is a separate issue.
Exchanging metadata does not violate copyright. I can stand on the sidewalk in front of MPAA headquarters, asking people to provide me with a copy of the latest blockbuster without infringing on anyone’s copyright. I can even offer to buy it.
So long as they are not further copying or distributing the work, they are not infringing on copyright.
Using it for their own profit is only an issue if they are claiming a fair use exemption. They aren’t claiming fair use. They don’t need to claim fair use, because requesting and receiving works is not a prohibited act under copyright law. The prohibited acts are copying and distribution, which can only be performed by the sender, not the receiver.
There is no legal prohibition against asking someone for a copy of a work, nor is there a prohibition against receiving a copy, even if that copy was illegally produced and/or illegally distributed.
They didn’t download them illegally, nor did they “use” them illegally. If you want to say they did something illegal, you have to argue that they were somehow in collusion with the uploader, which would make them uploaders themselves.
Receiving a copy of a copyrighted work (from anywhere) and using it for commercial purposes when the license doesn’t cover that usage (or simply doesn’t exist) is, in fact, illegal. This is why Anthropic was sued last year.
Anthropic was returning substantial parts of the actual work to users. They were creating additional copies of the work. Creating unauthorized copies is infringement.
You would have to argue that the users who received those substantial parts were also infringing on copyright. My point is made when you acknowledge that those users did not infringe by receiving those substantial parts, even if they specifically requested those substantial parts from Anthropic.
Why does the customer/user matter at all here when they’re not party to the lawsuit? You can have no customers yet and still infringe on copyright by using something for commercial purposes when you’re not licensed to do so. That’s how licenses work.
Of course, that limits the damages since there arguably hasn’t been any harm (which doesn’t make it legal), so lawsuits aren’t usually filed at that point; it’s usually a cease and desist. Also, I don’t have to argue anything. I’m not a lawyer.
I can show whatever movie I want at my house with my friends and that’s legal, but if I charge $10 to show it, that’s not legal. I don’t give a shit, because I pirate everything and show it to whoever I want for free, but that’s the law as written.
Why does the customer/user matter at all here when they’re not party to the lawsuit?
This conversation is about the legality of downloading without uploading.
Anthropic is not accused of downloading without uploading. Anthropic is accused of creating copies and distributing those copies to customers. They are being accused of violating copyright by uploading, not downloading.
The Anthropic lawsuit is completely irrelevant to the issue of “downloading only”. Rather than throw out your example entirely, I showed a relationship within your example that actually does relate to the topic under discussion.
Anthropic is accused of creating and distributing unauthorized copies. (Those are partial copies, rather than complete, but they are still copies, and still infringing.)
There are entities in your scenario who are receiving those copies, without creating additional copies, or distributing the copies they received. They are, effectively, “downloading only”.
So, tell me about those customers: When they ask Anthropic’s AI for an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, and Anthropic provides them an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, is the customer infringing on the copyright?
You’re still banging on about Anthropic? I used it as an example to make my point (which is that commercial usage of copyrighted works is illegal, nothing about making/distributing copies or uploading or whatever you think you’re talking about).
But you’re up and down this thread bending over backwards to not have a good faith discussion with people who are not lawyers, so it’s incredibly difficult to take you seriously and at face value.
nothing about making/distributing copies or uploading or whatever you think you’re talking about
Got it. From the OP article:
Last month, the authors filed an amended complaint which added these BitTorrent-related allegations to their existing claims. The plaintiffs pointed out that BitTorrent users typically upload content to third parties and suggest that Meta did the same here.
The article and conversation is not about the contract law that would apply with licensing. They aren’t about the fair use exemption which has a commercial usage factors. The article and conversation are talking about simple copyright law: copying and distribution.
Your very first comment in this thread was completely off topic. I apologize that it’s taken me this long to figure out where you’re coming from.
Yeah? Then do it. Show me a law relevant to this case that makes downloading an infringement.
You will be able to cite plenty of unenforceable propaganda, sure. The RIAA, MPAA, and various other trolls have broadly misrepresented the topic. You’ll even find this sort of FUD repeated by certain officials and government agencies.
But you will not any actual law relevant to this case. You will not find any judicial precedent where someone has been found to have violated copyright law solely for requesting and receiving copyrighted material.
Copyright law does not provide an enforcement mechanism against a recipient, even when that recipient knowingly requests an infringing copy. The only available mechanisms are against the entity creating the copy, and the entity distributing the copy.
You can prove me wrong by citing US Code, Federal regulation, or judicial precedent. I will not accept corporate propaganda, nor statements made by government entities unless those statements actually carry the force of law.
The closest you will be able to come is a theory that the “receiver” is somehow conspiring or colluding with the “sender”, and the law and precedent on conspiracy/collusion doesn’t quite fit. (Private trackers are getting close to that line, though…)
when downloading something, you are making a copy. That copy is unauthorized. It’s illegal. The distributor didn’t give it to you, they still have their copy. And you just reproduced it again.
when downloading something, you are making a copy.
No, you are not. The uploader is the only entity capable of making the copy. You can’t make a copy of something you do not possess.
When I send you a file, two copies come to exist. The copy on my computer, and the copy I created and sent to you. I made the copy, and I distributed it. You simply received it.
The copy you received is, indeed, unauthorized, but the infringing party is me, not you. I am the one who created and distributed the copy.
Receiving an unauthorized copy is not a copyright violation. A bootleg DVD is illegal to sell; it is not illegal to buy or to own.
and we have Störerhaftung which can also get you in trouble even if you didn’t do it yourself.
In the USA it’d probably be something like https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
which says the copyright holder has exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies […]
Which is kind of what you do when downloading something. There will be a copy on your harddisk… And (1) does NOT limit this to redistribution, like (3)… I’m not sure how it turns out in practice. I don’t follow American court rulings that closely.
which says the copyright holder has exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies […]
Which is kind of what you do when downloading something.
The uploader does that. Not the downloader. You can’t copy something you do not possess; the copy is created by the uploader. The copy on your harddisk was created and distributed by the uploader; you did not create the copy, nor did you distribute it. You merely received it.
you are literally choosing to run the software that writes it to your disk. You also (probably) take steps to ensure the uploader does not have access to your disk. You are in control of what gets saved
Well, did the uploader push it onto my computer, or was it me who clicked on something and initiated the transfer? I’d say it’s the latter. So the downloader initiated the copying process… I mean if I steal an orange in the supermarket, we also don’t say it fell into my hands and somehow they’re guilty…
And additionally you might find other local laws like this: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/156.35
and generally, this is related to wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer… Which all seem to be crimes and something people get charged with if someone wants them convicted of a crime. See Aaron Swartz for example.
Well, did the uploader push it onto my computer, or was it me who clicked on something and initiated the transfer?
It is NOT ILLEGAL TO ASK FOR A COPY. Copyright law does not prohibit you from asking me for a copy of a work. You are perfectly free to ask me for that copy.
I am not free to give you that copy. If I give you that copy, I am infringing on copyright, not you.
There isn’t anything infringement for me to offer to giver you a copy.
If I stand in front of MPAA headquarters with a big red button that says “I will make and give you an illegal copy of a movie if you press this button”, I have not violated copyright.
If you press the button, you have not violated copyright. You have merely indicated that you would like to receive an illegal copy; you have not created that copy, nor have you distributed a copy.
If you take the thumb drive I give you, and put it in your pocket, you still have not violated copyright. You still have not created a copy, nor have you distributed a copy. You are now in possession of that copy, but “possession” is not infringement. You would have to do something further with that copy before you would actually infringe on copyright: You would have to create an additional copy, or distribute the copy I gave you to someone else.
I violated copyright when I put the work on the thumb drive, and I violated it again when you received it, but you have done nothing illegal. You did not initiate the transfer; I did, either when I put the big red button out there, or when I handed you the thumb drive.
I mean if I steal an orange in the supermarket,
If you stick a knife in my face and tell me “your thumb drive or your life”, in addition to the numerous actual criminal penalties you face, the rights holder could, arguably, claim that you have infringed on copyright by distributing a copy.
Show me a law relevant to this case that makes downloading an infringement.
The law is called the DMCA but you’re clearly using some sort of mental gymnastics to argue that the act of piracy is not making a copy of copyrighted material, which is factually and legally incorrect.
The copy is created after the downloader originates the request. The uploader isn’t just manufacturing copies for no reason. The process requires 2 parties.
There are also countries where it is not - for example where I live last I checked downloading is legally ok, though some would say it is a grey zone moraly. It’s the distributing of a copy without proper licensing deals and stuff that’s illegal.
So downloading of illegal copies using torrents would be illegal in most cases as you would be seeding and thus providing the illegal copy to others.
Direct download is a-okay in the eye of law as long as it is only for your personal use
There is no legal prohibition against asking someone for a copy of a work
No one asked for a copy, they just took it.
nor is there a prohibition against receiving a copy, even if that copy was illegally produced and/or illegally distributed.
They didn’t “receive” a copy. No one dropped a hard drive off on their doorstep. They actively pursued the content and made a copy without permission for profit.
If you want to say they did something illegal, you have to argue that they were somehow in collusion with the uploader
Making a copy of copyrighted content without permission is illegal.
When I click a link, I am sending a request to a server. I am asking that server to provide me with information. The server’s operator is responsible for determining if and how the server should respond to my request. I don’t control that server. I can’t force it to send me data. I can only ask. If it is configured to accede to my request, it will start sending data, which may or may not be the data I requested. If it doesn’t want to, it can tell me to pound sand. The operator of that server is responsible for the server’s actions. The operator of that server is the uploader.
If Meta actually “just took it”, we wouldn’t be having a discussion about copyright. We would be talking about “Unlawful access to a computer”.
They didn’t “receive” a copy.
They absolutely did.
They actively pursued the content…
Actively pursuing content is perfectly lawful.
…and made a copy without permission…
You can’t copy something you do not possess. The entity who copied it was the uploader, not the downloader. That uploader created and distributed a copy by sending a bitstream to the receiver. Putting that bitstream on their hard drive is “receiving” not “creating a copy”.
…for profit.
A profit motive is only relevant if we are talking about a fair use exemption. They aren’t raising a fair use defense.
Making a copy of copyrighted content without permission is illegal.
Which they did not do. The uploader may have violated the law, but the downloader has not.
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.
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.
Facebook was leeching? No way…
Death penalty for leechers.
Somehow that makes it even worse in my opinion
dirty hit and run behavior, motherf****ers
This.
thats like the only thing that would’ve made this better bro
I doubt anything legal would come from this, but it does progress the conversation about piracy:
“You wouldn’t download a car would you? Cause zuck would without sharing”
So they’re inconsiderate assholes and leeches.
Now now, they’re not just inconsiderate assholes and leeches.
They’re inconsiderate nazi oligarch assholes and leeches.
Hey now, they aren’t Nazis. Nazis at least believe in something, even if it’s something terrible.
I was actually hoping to see that as a defense. The principal thing that copy enforcement corps always cite is ‘we downloaded a copy from their IP, thus they made a copy and distributed the work’.
If this works as a defense here then in effect they make direct download portals legal for the users at least.
You’re forgetting that they’re a rich corporation, and you’re not. They’ll get away with the defense, but even if it set a precedent, copyright groups can still sue you until you’re broke to make an example of you, even if you didn’t legally do anything “wrong”.
As long as you can sue someone for any reason without repercussions, then it’s always going to be the people with more money who come out on top. Always. Wining a lawsuit doesn’t mean you’re not still financially destroyed and driven into poverty for the rest of your life.
Has anyone in the US ever been busted for downloading from a direct download portal? Or usenet?
I think any progress here is mostly in principle, as I don’t think there’s a big practical risk to downloading only as it stands today, though I don’t follow things as closely as I used to and could be mistaken.
Nobody in the US has ever been busted on copyright grounds for downloading anything, regardless of source. The law does not provide for enforcement against downloading; only uploading.
No, but even a baseless civil suit costs a lot of time and money to fight.
That’s what I thought. I don’t think their defense succeeding here really gets us anything new.
It doesn’t get us anything new. It does put a big, gaping hole in the FUD that has been spread about the supposed “illegality” of downloading.
this is actually the way it works in australia: downloading content is not illegal; sharing content is illegal
thus as a consumer, usenet is fine
obligatory ianal
Yes your honor I lit up but didn’t inhale.
makes me think of the loopholes christian teenagers come up with to claim they’re totally not having premarital sex.
More like “Yes your honor I lit up and inhaled, just got a huge ass lungful, but I didn’t pass”
Where now are the copyright trolls that sued regular students for millions of dollars for downloading 30 songs?
Let me see:
So, a 15k billion dollars fine seem appropriate to give to Meta AND criminal sentences to all the c suite.
Or: apply the same rules to regular people and allow unlimited copyright violations without consequences
Your example is exactly why meta didn’t seed.
It’s a weak defense because the clients still exchanged metadata with other clients, plus there’s the big issue of using the copyrighted works for their own profit, and not just archiving/preservation/personal use
It’s a solid defense, since the lawsuit’s about the sharing of the books. The metadata of the torrents isn’t part of the relevant IP, and how they used the content they downloaded is a separate issue.
Exchanging metadata does not violate copyright. I can stand on the sidewalk in front of MPAA headquarters, asking people to provide me with a copy of the latest blockbuster without infringing on anyone’s copyright. I can even offer to buy it.
So long as they are not further copying or distributing the work, they are not infringing on copyright.
Using it for their own profit is only an issue if they are claiming a fair use exemption. They aren’t claiming fair use. They don’t need to claim fair use, because requesting and receiving works is not a prohibited act under copyright law. The prohibited acts are copying and distribution, which can only be performed by the sender, not the receiver.
Ah yes, I’m sure this strawman defense will hold up well for them in court.
It will probably work. Because, you know, money.
If it does work, does that then mean they’ve effectively declared torrenting to be legal? Or at least as long as you claim not to have seeded?
You hope! Laws will still apply to us peasants
Is there a way to change the torrent client’s name\version so you appear in a list of seeds as Mark Zuckerberg?
Certainly, but it’s not like that’ll get him in trouble or anything
It’d certainly encourage me to up my torrenting game so this shit appears 24\7 at rather weird uploads around the globe.
ah so they only downloaded them illigally, and then used them illegally, but didn’t share them illegally. got it
Sharing is caringSharing is crime(͡•_ ͡• )
There is no legal prohibition against asking someone for a copy of a work, nor is there a prohibition against receiving a copy, even if that copy was illegally produced and/or illegally distributed.
They didn’t download them illegally, nor did they “use” them illegally. If you want to say they did something illegal, you have to argue that they were somehow in collusion with the uploader, which would make them uploaders themselves.
Edit: Downvotes? In a piracy community?
Receiving a copy of a copyrighted work (from anywhere) and using it for commercial purposes when the license doesn’t cover that usage (or simply doesn’t exist) is, in fact, illegal. This is why Anthropic was sued last year.
Anthropic was returning substantial parts of the actual work to users. They were creating additional copies of the work. Creating unauthorized copies is infringement.
You would have to argue that the users who received those substantial parts were also infringing on copyright. My point is made when you acknowledge that those users did not infringe by receiving those substantial parts, even if they specifically requested those substantial parts from Anthropic.
Why does the customer/user matter at all here when they’re not party to the lawsuit? You can have no customers yet and still infringe on copyright by using something for commercial purposes when you’re not licensed to do so. That’s how licenses work.
Of course, that limits the damages since there arguably hasn’t been any harm (which doesn’t make it legal), so lawsuits aren’t usually filed at that point; it’s usually a cease and desist. Also, I don’t have to argue anything. I’m not a lawyer.
I can show whatever movie I want at my house with my friends and that’s legal, but if I charge $10 to show it, that’s not legal. I don’t give a shit, because I pirate everything and show it to whoever I want for free, but that’s the law as written.
This conversation is about the legality of downloading without uploading.
Anthropic is not accused of downloading without uploading. Anthropic is accused of creating copies and distributing those copies to customers. They are being accused of violating copyright by uploading, not downloading.
The Anthropic lawsuit is completely irrelevant to the issue of “downloading only”. Rather than throw out your example entirely, I showed a relationship within your example that actually does relate to the topic under discussion.
Anthropic is accused of creating and distributing unauthorized copies. (Those are partial copies, rather than complete, but they are still copies, and still infringing.)
There are entities in your scenario who are receiving those copies, without creating additional copies, or distributing the copies they received. They are, effectively, “downloading only”.
So, tell me about those customers: When they ask Anthropic’s AI for an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, and Anthropic provides them an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, is the customer infringing on the copyright?
You’re still banging on about Anthropic? I used it as an example to make my point (which is that commercial usage of copyrighted works is illegal, nothing about making/distributing copies or uploading or whatever you think you’re talking about).
But you’re up and down this thread bending over backwards to not have a good faith discussion with people who are not lawyers, so it’s incredibly difficult to take you seriously and at face value.
Got it. From the OP article:
The article and conversation is not about the contract law that would apply with licensing. They aren’t about the fair use exemption which has a commercial usage factors. The article and conversation are talking about simple copyright law: copying and distribution.
Your very first comment in this thread was completely off topic. I apologize that it’s taken me this long to figure out where you’re coming from.
downvotes are because you are saying provably factually incorrect things.
Yeah? Then do it. Show me a law relevant to this case that makes downloading an infringement.
You will be able to cite plenty of unenforceable propaganda, sure. The RIAA, MPAA, and various other trolls have broadly misrepresented the topic. You’ll even find this sort of FUD repeated by certain officials and government agencies.
But you will not any actual law relevant to this case. You will not find any judicial precedent where someone has been found to have violated copyright law solely for requesting and receiving copyrighted material.
Copyright law does not provide an enforcement mechanism against a recipient, even when that recipient knowingly requests an infringing copy. The only available mechanisms are against the entity creating the copy, and the entity distributing the copy.
You can prove me wrong by citing US Code, Federal regulation, or judicial precedent. I will not accept corporate propaganda, nor statements made by government entities unless those statements actually carry the force of law.
The closest you will be able to come is a theory that the “receiver” is somehow conspiring or colluding with the “sender”, and the law and precedent on conspiracy/collusion doesn’t quite fit. (Private trackers are getting close to that line, though…)
when downloading something, you are making a copy. That copy is unauthorized. It’s illegal. The distributor didn’t give it to you, they still have their copy. And you just reproduced it again.
No, you are not. The uploader is the only entity capable of making the copy. You can’t make a copy of something you do not possess.
When I send you a file, two copies come to exist. The copy on my computer, and the copy I created and sent to you. I made the copy, and I distributed it. You simply received it.
The copy you received is, indeed, unauthorized, but the infringing party is me, not you. I am the one who created and distributed the copy.
Receiving an unauthorized copy is not a copyright violation. A bootleg DVD is illegal to sell; it is not illegal to buy or to own.
In Germany we definitely have this:
and we have Störerhaftung which can also get you in trouble even if you didn’t do it yourself.
In the USA it’d probably be something like https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
which says the copyright holder has exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies […]
Which is kind of what you do when downloading something. There will be a copy on your harddisk… And (1) does NOT limit this to redistribution, like (3)… I’m not sure how it turns out in practice. I don’t follow American court rulings that closely.
The uploader does that. Not the downloader. You can’t copy something you do not possess; the copy is created by the uploader. The copy on your harddisk was created and distributed by the uploader; you did not create the copy, nor did you distribute it. You merely received it.
you are literally choosing to run the software that writes it to your disk. You also (probably) take steps to ensure the uploader does not have access to your disk. You are in control of what gets saved
“Saving” is not “copying”. “Saving” is “receiving”.
I don’t have access to an original; I am physically incapable of creating a “copy”.
Well, did the uploader push it onto my computer, or was it me who clicked on something and initiated the transfer? I’d say it’s the latter. So the downloader initiated the copying process… I mean if I steal an orange in the supermarket, we also don’t say it fell into my hands and somehow they’re guilty…
And additionally you might find other local laws like this: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/156.35
and generally, this is related to wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer… Which all seem to be crimes and something people get charged with if someone wants them convicted of a crime. See Aaron Swartz for example.
It is NOT ILLEGAL TO ASK FOR A COPY. Copyright law does not prohibit you from asking me for a copy of a work. You are perfectly free to ask me for that copy.
I am not free to give you that copy. If I give you that copy, I am infringing on copyright, not you.
There isn’t anything infringement for me to offer to giver you a copy.
If I stand in front of MPAA headquarters with a big red button that says “I will make and give you an illegal copy of a movie if you press this button”, I have not violated copyright.
If you press the button, you have not violated copyright. You have merely indicated that you would like to receive an illegal copy; you have not created that copy, nor have you distributed a copy.
If you take the thumb drive I give you, and put it in your pocket, you still have not violated copyright. You still have not created a copy, nor have you distributed a copy. You are now in possession of that copy, but “possession” is not infringement. You would have to do something further with that copy before you would actually infringe on copyright: You would have to create an additional copy, or distribute the copy I gave you to someone else.
I violated copyright when I put the work on the thumb drive, and I violated it again when you received it, but you have done nothing illegal. You did not initiate the transfer; I did, either when I put the big red button out there, or when I handed you the thumb drive.
If you stick a knife in my face and tell me “your thumb drive or your life”, in addition to the numerous actual criminal penalties you face, the rights holder could, arguably, claim that you have infringed on copyright by distributing a copy.
The law is called the DMCA but you’re clearly using some sort of mental gymnastics to argue that the act of piracy is not making a copy of copyrighted material, which is factually and legally incorrect.
The question isn’t whether a copy is being made. The question is who is making the copy. That person is the uploaded, not the downloaded.
The copy is created after the downloader originates the request. The uploader isn’t just manufacturing copies for no reason. The process requires 2 parties.
Undisputed. And irrelevant. The uploader is making and distributing the copy. The downloaded is merely receiving it.
It’s very illegal in Fance to download without paying, and I guess it’s the same in a lot of other countries.
Best I can tell, this lawsuit was filed in a US federal court in California. French law doesn’t seem to be applicable.
French pirates should probably use a VPN endpoint in a more enlightened society.
There are also countries where it is not - for example where I live last I checked downloading is legally ok, though some would say it is a grey zone moraly. It’s the distributing of a copy without proper licensing deals and stuff that’s illegal.
So downloading of illegal copies using torrents would be illegal in most cases as you would be seeding and thus providing the illegal copy to others.
Direct download is a-okay in the eye of law as long as it is only for your personal use
Fuck France and all those other countries.
No one asked for a copy, they just took it.
They didn’t “receive” a copy. No one dropped a hard drive off on their doorstep. They actively pursued the content and made a copy without permission for profit.
Making a copy of copyrighted content without permission is illegal.
Piracy community can’t be interested in facts?
When I click a link, I am sending a request to a server. I am asking that server to provide me with information. The server’s operator is responsible for determining if and how the server should respond to my request. I don’t control that server. I can’t force it to send me data. I can only ask. If it is configured to accede to my request, it will start sending data, which may or may not be the data I requested. If it doesn’t want to, it can tell me to pound sand. The operator of that server is responsible for the server’s actions. The operator of that server is the uploader.
If Meta actually “just took it”, we wouldn’t be having a discussion about copyright. We would be talking about “Unlawful access to a computer”.
They absolutely did.
Actively pursuing content is perfectly lawful.
You can’t copy something you do not possess. The entity who copied it was the uploader, not the downloader. That uploader created and distributed a copy by sending a bitstream to the receiver. Putting that bitstream on their hard drive is “receiving” not “creating a copy”.
A profit motive is only relevant if we are talking about a fair use exemption. They aren’t raising a fair use defense.
Which they did not do. The uploader may have violated the law, but the downloader has not.
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.
It seems the readers have spoken.
Bastard leachers.
not really what we upset about but okay