Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 471 posts

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#231

Post by tiahura »

otterley wrote: post #198

Both the headline and the theme of the story are incorrect and misleading. Meta isn’t claiming that everything they’re doing is lawful. They’re claiming that their activities don’t run afoul of a particular California state law, CDAFA, and section 1202(b)(1) of the DMCA. It’s very common in litigation for the plaintiff to accuse the defendant of every violation they might be guilty of or liable for (“throwing the boo…

Won't named plaintiffs have the burden of proving meta actually seeded blocks containing their works? How could they ever do that?

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#232

Post by noboostforyou »

stalluri wrote: post #207

Models absorbed the pirated content. Now Meta is distributing those models. Is that considered distribution?

For that argument I believe the question becomes "is the output of a model considered a derivative work of the training data?"

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#233

Post by LuciOfStars »

lordloki wrote: post #154
thrance wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit off-topic, but I always thought it was "funny" how americans are so opposed to censorship but are perfectly OK with advertising and other forms of propaganda (from social media editorializing, bought newspapers...), that arguably do much more to "control men's minds" than censorship ever would. It just fuels my personal theory that americans only reason in positive liberty (freedom to...) and never in negative…

It's very simple, Americans believe that the individual is responsible for themselves while most of the rest of the world wants to be "protected" by a restrictive government. One leads to innovation and one stifles it. We would rather be responsible for discovering the truth on our own, than trust a central authority to decide what is and isn't true(or propaganda). I find it funny how Europeans think their government…

Hi, American here. Just want to say I'm embarrassed to share a nation with this nutcase. Sorry, friends.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#234

Post by LuciOfStars »

thrance wrote: post #137
sightbroke wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... "Attached to the core rights of free speech and free press are several peripheral rights that make these core rights more secure. The peripheral rights encompass not only freedom of association, including privacy in one's associations, but also, in the words of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), "the freedom of the entire university community", i.e., the ri…

A bit off-topic, but I always thought it was "funny" how americans are so opposed to censorship but are perfectly OK with advertising and other forms of propaganda (from social media editorializing, bought newspapers...), that arguably do much more to "control men's minds" than censorship ever would. It just fuels my personal theory that americans only reason in positive liberty (freedom to...) and never in negative…

American here. We're an incredibly large and incredibly diverse country. This generaliization doesn't really work.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#235

Post by d1sxeyes »

stogot wrote: post #149
d1sxeyes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more likely, drop the case to avoid establishing a precedent. Sounds like Meta are banking on the entertainment industry looking at it and deciding that the risk of losing this case is too high given Meta’s almost infinitely deep pockets to mount a legal defence.

what is worse to them: Precedent that LLMs get to keep & use copyrighted data LLMs get to keep & use copyrighted data without legal precedent I bet the industry will file amicus briefs to try to support the plaintiffs

Dropping the case does not create any precedent, that’s the point. Losing the case would.

If you’re going to have this fight, wait until you have it with a worse-prepared and worse-resourced opponent where you’re more confident of the win.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#236

Post by thrance »

lordloki wrote: post #154
thrance wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit off-topic, but I always thought it was "funny" how americans are so opposed to censorship but are perfectly OK with advertising and other forms of propaganda (from social media editorializing, bought newspapers...), that arguably do much more to "control men's minds" than censorship ever would. It just fuels my personal theory that americans only reason in positive liberty (freedom to...) and never in negative…

It's very simple, Americans believe that the individual is responsible for themselves while most of the rest of the world wants to be "protected" by a restrictive government. One leads to innovation and one stifles it. We would rather be responsible for discovering the truth on our own, than trust a central authority to decide what is and isn't true(or propaganda). I find it funny how Europeans think their government…

Seeing how almost everyone here in France despises our current government, I don't think this propaganda you mention is very effective, if it's as present as you claim.

Meanwhile money basically dictates who gets elected on your side of the pond, whith billionaires being crazy over-represented in your political offices, despite being a tiny minority in your population.

Also, the people advocating for smaller government are often on board with executive power consolidation and increased police and army funding, so I think it's little more than a stance.

You can't "discover the truth" on your own, no one can. Are you able to go everywhere something happens in the wordl to get a first hand account of the event and then build your own conclusions? Of course not, you rely on media (social or legacy) to digest the facts for you, and they might (and do) influence you and how you think about the world. It can't be another way, so fighting obvious lies isn't a bad thing in my book.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#237

Post by danaris »

Ray20 wrote: post #227
flir wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. This is not the month to be making that argument. I like having food hygiene standards - it means I don't have to worry about chalk in my bread, arsenic in my sweets, or antibiotics in my beef. I honestly believe we'd be better off with informational hygiene standards, too. The last two decades have taught me this lesson - free speech absolutism is a giant "kick me" sign on the back of society, and when you find…

>free speech absolutism is a giant "kick me" sign on the back of society How does this work? What danger represents freedom of speech? With lack of it dangers is understandable: it is a giant "welcome" sign for bloody totalitarian dictatorship.

If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you (which is one of the things that free speech absolutists generally argue for), then you will have no way of knowing if what you buy is going to kill you.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#238

Post by saghm »

papercrane wrote: post #199
sightbroke wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... "Attached to the core rights of free speech and free press are several peripheral rights that make these core rights more secure. The peripheral rights encompass not only freedom of association, including privacy in one's associations, but also, in the words of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), "the freedom of the entire university community", i.e., the ri…

The US Constitution grants congress the power to give authors and inventors time-limited exclusive rights to their works/discoveries (Art1.S8.C8). This moots the 1st amendment argument. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

I don't think that authors having exclusive rights to their works necessarily implies that someone else _receiving_ them is legally culpable though. My admittedly naive thinking is that someone distributing something illegally doesn't necessarily imply that the receiver is also committing crime. If Robin Hood steals a fancy 4K TV from the mansion downtown and gives it to his neighbor as a birthday gift, would the neighbor be guilty of a crime as well? Does the answer change if Robin Hood were instead the owner of the mansion next door (who could plausibly be the owner of the TV) and gives it to his less wealthy childhood friend?

I'm not saying that either of these situations are directly analogous to the distribution of copyrighted works (since among other things, I don't think there's any way to buy a TV without being able to freely give it to someone else), but that it's not immediately obvious to me that the illegality in distribution has to be symmetric, and that there might be a coherent legal argument that people having the right to _receive_ information isn't inconsistent with the only people with the right to transmit it refusing to allow it. The part of the Constitution (edit: Supreme Court opinion; not actually the Constitution itself) quoted above doesn't seem to say anything about the right to share anything, just to receive it.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#240

Post by thrance »

LuciOfStars wrote: post #234
thrance wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit off-topic, but I always thought it was "funny" how americans are so opposed to censorship but are perfectly OK with advertising and other forms of propaganda (from social media editorializing, bought newspapers...), that arguably do much more to "control men's minds" than censorship ever would. It just fuels my personal theory that americans only reason in positive liberty (freedom to...) and never in negative…

American here. We're an incredibly large and incredibly diverse country. This generaliization doesn't really work.

I know, I have friends and family in America. It was just a fun thought I had in my head for a while. I should have added a "Some americans..." in my comment. Sorry for the blanket statement.
Post reply on HN