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

251–260 of 471 posts

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

#251

Post by otterley »

tiahura wrote: post #231
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?

The plaintiffs do have the burden of proof, but there are many ways to Rome. Any evidence they can find, whether it be packet captures, client and server logs, incriminating emails, or even admissions, will be proffered to the court and/or jury.

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

#252

Post by papercrane »

tiahura wrote: post #231
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?

The plaintiffs will, eventually, need to prove that their claim is likely true ("preponderance of the evidence" standard.) Right now they're fighting about expanding discovery to try and uncover more evidence.

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

#253

Post by wkat4242 »

mrcode007 wrote: post #245
contravariant wrote: post #2

Well, 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.

With Musk in the White House (who has similar interests) that might actually happen.

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

#254

Post by wkat4242 »

mft_ wrote: post #208
trilbyglens wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is wild. You will get a knock on your door within hours of firing up a torrent client

Not sure if this is just misinformed, or anti-Germany/EU propaganda? Either way, not true. In Germany, if you torrent something without protection of a VPN, you may receive a letter from a blood-sucking legal firm within a week or two, with a fine that can be argued down somewhat.

I'm sure the OP meant "knock on your door" figuratively. And refers to exactly what you say, those leechy law firm letters. In that sense it's entirely true.

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

#255

Post by JKCalhoun »

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…

Feels like their defense for some state incursion is an admission of a larger crime. I still don't get it.

I'm not going to murder someone, steal their car, then put out a statement that I was unaware the car had expired tags and I shouldn't be prosecuted for it.

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

#256

Post by JKCalhoun »

tiahura wrote: post #231
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?

Company emails, internal server logs.

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

#257

Post by mock-possum »

saghm wrote: post #238
papercrane wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nei…

If Robin Hood sees a nice painting hanging in the castle, then commands a genie to create an exact brush-stroke-by-brush-stroke replica that is identical to the original in every way, then gives the replica to his neighbor as a birthday gift, has any crime even occurred?

In this situation, the noble does not own the painting, so much as they possess it and have only been granted a license to privately view it, not a license to show it to others, and further license only to reproduce it for their own personal archival purposes - Robin Hood did not have license to view the painting, and the genie did not have license to reproduce it

but now that the reproduction exists, does it carry the same license with it, and should the neighbor be held responsible for the original violation of the license, when all they’ve done is receive an illegally produced copy?

Should the owner if the original painting be held responsible for failing to prevent it from being illegally viewed and copied?

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

#258

Post by mrcode007 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #253
mrcode007 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With Musk in the White House (who has similar interests) that might actually happen.

A right adversarial move would be to support this and watch the GDP without the entertainment business as part of it. Check what happens next.

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

#259

Post by JKCalhoun »

Mindwipe wrote: post #15
isaacfrond wrote: post #5

It's certainly nice to see someone accused of bittorrenting with the bankroll to come up with a decent legal defense team.

This isn't a decent defence, it's a losing desperate one.

At some point I expect we'll see the "shareholders made me do it" defense. You know, the fiduciary-duty-to-keep-making-billions-regardless defense.

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

#260

Post by otterley »

braiamp wrote: post #223
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…

> Meta responded to this complaint with a motion to dismiss. In a supporting reply filed on Tuesday, the company notes that the ‘torrenting’ allegations, relating to the removal of copyright information and the CDAFA violations, don’t hold up. They are addressing both the second and third counts. The "Direct Copyright Infringement" isn't being addressed by these claims. This is even quoted on the filing you provided:…

How does your response conflict with what I said?
Post reply on HN