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

321–330 of 471 posts

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

#321

Post by plorg »

londons_explore wrote: post #300
plorg wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't worth my time or risk to test it myself, but if you disable seeding will Warner Media still send a notice to your ISP? If you set your client to 0B/s I assume it's still broadcasting hashes. I suppose if you disable that function entirely in your client there would be nothing to see. I guess some people may be worried about actual fines, but I would assume the biggest risk to most people is getting blocked b…

The contractors whose job is collecting lists of people downloading films generally make sure to download at least a viewable clip of the film direct from your client so it could be shown in court. "Yes, your honor, here is the evidence we retrieved direct from the defendant".

Sure, but AIUI they generally are not leading with a lawsuit, they're sending a cease and desist notice to your ISP, which doesn't require that kind of proof. Operators like Comcast won't require that to drop you - in fact they may give you a warning for simply downloading torrents at all, even if they are literally, actually, Linux ISOs.

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

#322

Post by icedchai »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #307
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure a good¹ lawyer on the other side would let you get away with claiming Fortunately that’s not how courts work. I’m not familiar with the case, but it’s possible setting a 1 byte per second limit showed intent to not distribute.

In the context of a book, that could still be seeding a book every few hours..

1 byte per second would give you a couple of pages every few hours. So probably not.

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

#323

Post by wrs »

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…

AFAIK, in the US it’s literally about copying. In fact, case law mostly supports the position that just the act of copying a program from disk into memory to run it is protected by copyright (with some statutory exceptions). (Google “RAM copy doctrine”.)

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

#324

Post by dgb23 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #192
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.

Awesome. And just to be clear, Meta will walk away scot-free, but Billy Torrent is definitely still going to be fined $500,000 if he pulls down "Sleeping Beauty" from 1959.

Exactly. There’s always a question of power.

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

#325

Post by _DeadFred_ »

nonfamous wrote: post #279
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…

I would expect it to be argued by defendants that since no man (or indeed woman) at Meta actually read the books that were torrented, the First Amendment does not apply here. The question is: does the First Amendment apply to an algorithm?

So I can setup a cable streaming service with ripped vids as long a no one in my company watches it?

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

#326

Post by tempfile »

ru552 wrote: post #319
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…

Copy in copyright is not copy like copy in copying some data. Copy in copyright is a term for the actual writing that gets published on ads, or magazines, or in a news paper. "I need to get the copy from marketing for this campaign." "The editor hasn't approved the copy for the article yet." Typically, people not in/around the industry aren't familiar with the term, which leads to the confusion.

This sounds completely false to me. Do you have a reference for it?

In particular, the original Statute of Anne (the first law establishing a copyright) is officially titled:

> An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Copies, during the Times therein mentioned

No doubt people used the word "copy" in the sense you mean, but "copy" in "copyright" is absolutely about copying as in copying some data.

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

#327

Post by singlow »

ru552 wrote: post #319
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…

Copy in copyright is not copy like copy in copying some data. Copy in copyright is a term for the actual writing that gets published on ads, or magazines, or in a news paper. "I need to get the copy from marketing for this campaign." "The editor hasn't approved the copy for the article yet." Typically, people not in/around the industry aren't familiar with the term, which leads to the confusion.

Any proof that the word copyright was intentionally referring to the noun instead of the verb? The British Statute of Anne in 1710, the first copyright statute, definitely referred to the act of copying a book, not some abstract concept of writing samples.

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

#328

Post by easterncalculus »

lubujackson wrote: post #296
guappa wrote: post #34

I think they should be fined more for torrenting and not seeding :D

Meta's rep continues to degrade - first they steal from copyright holders, but then they admit to leeching? Not even a 1:1 ratio?! /kickban

Seriously though, where is that magnet link? That's the only question on my mind when these articles come up.

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

#329

Post by tempfile »

miki123211 wrote: post #49
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…

"distribution is the act protected by copyright" was the rule all along in many (non-US) jurisdictions, not an American so not sure about how the US does things. This is why you often see people getting fines for torrenting (Germany is extremely notorious for this for example), but fines for using Usenet, IPTV, streaming or book download services are a lot more rare (which doesn't mean they're nonexistent)! Operating…

> "distribution is the act protected by copyright" was the rule all along in many (non-US) jurisdictions, not an American so not sure about how the US does things.

I am pretty sure this is false. It is just that distribution carries heavier sentences and is easier to discover, not unlike with drug dealing.

It is not legal, anywhere, to (for example) borrow a DVD from someone, copy it, and give the original back. In some jurisdictions you have a right to backups, and a right to resale, but you emphatically do not have a right to privately copy.

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

#330

Post by pfannkuchen »

ru552 wrote: post #319
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…

Copy in copyright is not copy like copy in copying some data. Copy in copyright is a term for the actual writing that gets published on ads, or magazines, or in a news paper. "I need to get the copy from marketing for this campaign." "The editor hasn't approved the copy for the article yet." Typically, people not in/around the industry aren't familiar with the term, which leads to the confusion.

I always thought that ad copy also came from copy as in copy some data. Like it's the words that get copied when the media is replicated for distribution, as opposed to words that are for some internal communication purpose.
Post reply on HN