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

331–340 of 471 posts

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

#331

Post by singlow »

kqr wrote: post #281
mock-possum wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> an exact brush-stroke-by-brush-stroke replica that is identical to the original in every way Yes, forgery is a crime in many jurisdictions, and in some it does not matter whether or not you are transparent about it being such -- specifically for copyright/trademark reasons.

Forgery would require trying to pass off the copy as an original. As long as it is not pretending to be something it isn't, it is just a replica, not a forgery.

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

#332

Post by tempfile »

consp wrote: post #69
miki123211 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Downloading used to be legal here. Now it is explicitly not anymore. Because why not if you can squeeze some extra money from end users who would have never bought your item for the insane prices asked.

When and where? This does not sound true for any jurisdiction I know about.

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

#333

Post by dgreensp »

wrs wrote: post #323
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”.)

That’s my understanding as well. Duplicating the bytes of a file when you don’t have the rights to the content is technically infringement and grounds for an infringement claim, and then you have to explain in court why it’s “fair use.”

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

#334

Post by singlow »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #330
ru552 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The use of the noun copy probably came from the act of copying, but both uses predated the word copyright, so that doesn't really help answer the question.

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

#335

Post by wrs »

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.

The word “copy” in the early 1700s when copyright was codified in law meant both a written text and a reproduction of a written text. The meaning you’re using, of text at an intermediate stage of a publishing process, is much later, 19th century. [0] So, the original meaning was a noun (the right to make “a copy” of a book) but meant the book itself, not the abstract text of the book. It would be interesting to research whether there were any rulings in that period about hand-copying a book, which was the only alternative to printing it.

Nowadays of course copyright covers much more than text, and includes such “copies” as the public performance of a theatrical work or reproduction of a sculpture, so the modern copyright clearly doesn’t have the meaning you’re using.

[0] https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/08/copy.html

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

#336

Post by pdonis »

flir wrote: post #299
pdonis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And yet somehow humanity survived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years without such standards, and without having our ancestors' food poisoned. Also, if you actually believe that government food hygiene standards prevent all possible bad things from being in your food…

> prevent all possible bad things Well that seems like a bad faith interpretation of my argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning

You included in your argument at least one bad thing that, as I pointed out, is not only not stopped by government regulation, it's explicitly permitted by it. The fact that there was a bad thing that happened before government regulation, which a government regulation was then passed to try to prevent, doesn't make your argument valid.

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

#337

Post by pdonis »

altruios wrote: post #309
pdonis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. And yet somehow humanity survived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years without such standards, and without having our ancestors' food poisoned. Also, if you actually believe that government food hygiene standards prevent all possible bad things from being in your food…

> And yet somehow humanity survived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years without such standards Narrator: "Most humans didn't survive past year five due to preventable illnesses and food born contamination, the humans' ancestor's infant mortality rate was rather high before the age of food safety and soap".

> Narrator

Of what? Where are you getting this from?

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

#338

Post by tempfile »

I am astonished that Meta is even trying this defense. It does not even remotely pass the smell test. Seeding is not remotely relevant, and neither is the fact that torrenting in general is legal. The works are not published with the consent of the rightsholders - LibGen and Z-Library distribute them illegally, and Meta therefore obtained them illegally.

This is an open-and-shut case.

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

#339

Post by doctorpangloss »

mrweasel wrote: post #56
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.

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.

Meta already runs three of the top eight copyright-violation distribution networks.

Google paid about $1b to Viacom in the YouTube piracy dispute. That's a lot of money, but do you recall anything seriously changing when that happened?

To me, the funniest product is Beat Saber. The best VR game by far. 99% of the value is tied up in violating musician's rights. Meta saved that game. Did people stop making music? No.

This book torrenting thing is complex. The main thing plaintiffs want is discovery of the training data. It's not complicated. There's no justification for the court to block that, it's a fishing expedition yes, but one that will turn up a lot of fish. Then all AI companies will have to acquiesce to it. That is the "win" for the industry.

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

#340

Post by Scoring6931 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #263
hobs wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its reversed, and that's just the USA - The U.S. Media and Entertainment (M&E) industry is the largest in the world at $649 billion (of the $2.8 trillion global market) and is projected to grow to $808 billion by 2028 at an average yearly rate of 4.3% (PwC 2024). https://www.trade.gov/media-entertainment Meta Platforms, formerly known as Facebook Inc., continues to dominate the digital landscape with impressi…

Meta's market cap is over $1.7 trillion. Over twice as large as the whole media and entertainment industry.

Market cap is not cash in the bank.
Post reply on HN