Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
1–10 of 471 posts
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#2Well, I guess it would be nice if we could have some precedent for the claim that downloading copyright protected information is not in itself a breach of copyright.
It makes sense from the point of view that distribution is the act protected by copyright, not the mere act of copying. If that sounds odd to you then that's probably on purpose, There's been plenty of opportunity to rename copyright to authorrights or something similar, but then people might start wondering how keeping something from public domain for 90 years after the author's death could possibly be about protecting the rights of the author.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#3If you download one book you're a criminal. If they download millions of books, that's just business.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#4If you download one book you're a criminal. If they download millions of books, that's just business.
you are not. Thats their point
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#5It's certainly nice to see someone accused of bittorrenting with the bankroll to come up with a decent legal defense team.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#6"If you steal from one author, it's plagiarism; if you steal from many, it's research." - Wilson Mizner
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#7Aaron Swartz didn't seed or distribute articles too
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#8Well, I guess it would be nice if we could have some precedent for the claim that downloading copyright protected information is not in itself a breach of copyright. It makes sense from the point of view that distribution is the act protected by copyright, not the mere act of copying . If that sounds odd to you then that's probably on purpose, There's been plenty of opportunity to rename copyright to authorrights or…
Author rights wouldn’t be an accurate term. Copy rights do not necessarily belong to the author, even when they are alive. Distribution rights or “distrights” would make more sense for your argument.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#9Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#10Aaron Swartz didn't seed or distribute articles too
I don't think that what Aaron did was* wrong.
Meta's wholescale theft, however, is pretty hard to defend, and Meta knew it. That's why they went to some lengths to hide it.
Similarly, that OpenAI whistleblower, the one whose family was calling for a murder investigation, might be alive today if it wasn't pretty well known that stealing the work of thousands/millions of people to make a for-profit imitation machine isn't exactly cool or legal.
Edit: egregious typo.