The author of the linked piece identifies as a "reporter," however it reads like an opinion piece. We should demand better from ALL journalists.
Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
241–250 of 471 posts
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#242Models absorbed the pirated content. Now Meta is distributing those models. Is that considered distribution?
[deleted]
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#243If this was 15-20 years ago, arguably at the peak of P2P filesharing, I suspect most people would side with Meta.
I still do on this one specific argument. Just because I loathe them doesn’t mean I disagree with everything they say.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
And of course the "thuiskopieheffing", a tax on any storage device that ostensibly is used to fund those whose media gets copied, is still in effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Netherlan... As long as I'm paying a tax for it, it is my right to copy
No, it is not your right to copy! If you want to keep using euros and have free travel to other Eurozone countries, you need to respect EU law. The tax does not respect EU law because it makes no effort to actually offset losses to copyright holders. Your comment doesn't even make sense! The intention was never to make piracy okay, it was to offset a tiny fraction of the financial losses. These financial losses are s…
Collecting restitution from innocent parties is perhaps the definition of injustice.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#245Well, 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…
I’m waiting for this precedent to be set in favor of META and then enjoying all the movie torrents I can get my hands on. Without seeding of course.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#246It's certainly nice to see someone accused of bittorrenting with the bankroll to come up with a decent legal defense team.
Isn't Meta going to be battling the full legal team of the entertainment industry with this argument? I think Meta did something stupid with this argument, because there is no way that Hollywood or the music industry is going be pleased with a precedence for legally downloading copyrighted material. They will now do everything in their power to get Meta found guilty.
There's more money to make for entertainment artists in licensing their image and voice for content creation at scale (for the average joe). They need the LLM to exist, so there's no point in crying about how it was made.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paying the price of one copy does not imply that you can use it for training, right ?
(note; not a lawyer) It depends on if a model is a derivate work from it's source material or not. If yes, then all copyright protections come into force. If not, then the author can't rely on copyright to protect themselves. My instinct/gut says that an AI model is a derivative work from the training data (in that it quite literally takes training data to produce a new creative output, with the "human addition" bein…
Understood, Was there any conclusion to the past copy right cases that have been filed against open ai / anthropic ?
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
>If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you
But this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not in any way cancel out responsibility for fraud.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it'd hold up, but one could argue that the first amendment was an amendment, and thus changed the constitution, and therefore removed that ability of congress.
The amendments protect the rights as they existed at the time the amendment was passed. I.e. how would the plain text of the text be interpreted by a reasonable person in 1791. E.g., re 2nd, what did militia mean? Thus, the 1A locks in speech rights as they existed in 1791. Because there was no right to slander, or threaten, or commit treason, or "share" in 1791, Congress retained the power to regulate.
That's certainly one interpretation. Your parents also has an interpretation. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>If megacorporations can lie to you about what they're selling you But this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not in any way cancel out responsibility for fraud.
Then you are not a free speech absolutist, and reasonable people will disagree about where the tipping point is.
Fire in a crowded theatre? CP? Threats of violence? Hate speech?