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

431–440 of 471 posts

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

#431

Post by withinboredom »

opo wrote: post #428
withinboredom wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you tell someone a secret, you need to be prepared to beat them up if they share it. — dad, 1996 This gives you the right “to beat them up” but not the right to learn a secret. You can take a patent and build that thing in your house. The government can’t stop you, neither the inventor. It’s when you try to sell it that they can come after you.

>...You can take a patent and build that thing in your house. The government can’t stop you, neither the inventor. It’s when you try to sell it that they can come after you. I don't think that is correct. The patent act states: >...Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United Stat…

> I don't think that is correct.

It is. It's often called the "research exemption." You literally can only get into any kind of trouble when your intentions are commercial.

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

#432

Post by pfannkuchen »

singlow wrote: post #334
pfannkuchen wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So I guess the relevant distinction I see is whether the owner of the copyright controls the act of copying a string or controls the string itself in any artifact anywhere. We’re saying that if they meant copy the verb it’s the former and if they meant copy the noun it’s the latter. Is that right?

I see what you mean about it not helping to answer the question in a direct way.

Where I’m coming from is I think that if copy and copy were of a different origin completely, like from French vs Greek or something, and the homophone-ness (homophonity?) was a coincidence, then I could see the authors of the law using the much less common industry term without considering whether people would get confused.

But if one refers to the other, it seems implausibly confusing for them to use the way less common meaning and not expect anyone to get confused in a way that would change the meaning of the law. Or was the copyright law written by the characters of mad men??? Seems more like an overreach by certain media publishers.

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

#433

Post by thescriptkiddie »

999900000999 wrote: post #283
lucasyvas wrote: post #151

This sets a hilarious precedent where downloading torrents becomes completely fine. You can just cite this case if they win - even though we are talking about books the MPAA is probably going to have an opinion here.

You're typical 19 year old doesn't have a team of elite lawyers to argue for her when she torrents Game of Thrones. Expect Meta to "win" as in the plaintiffs just give up and calculate it's not worth pursuing. It would stun me if they even settle. Not to mention the LLMs themselves are creating unauthorized copies of copywriten content. But again, Meta has unlimited money. Different rules for them.

has anyone ever gotten in actual legal trouble for torrenting? I know there was that one kid that a record label made an example out of for using napster a long time ago

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

#434

Post by imtringued »

londons_explore wrote: post #424
plorg wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Evidence is generally collected for every detected violation in case it ends up in court.

That's not how it works.

You're sent a cease and desist letter with a prewritten cease and desist contract that includes confession of guilt and the obligation to pay a contractual fine, plus additional fines for future breaches.

So in reality the point of the letters is to scare you into signing and paying a fee. Actually collecting evidence is irrelevant, because the lawyer's goal isn't to go to court. That's expensive and he may lose!

The lawyers goal is primarily to stop you from pirating, and then also get lucky enough to win a small lottery payout along the way.

Send a million letters and one thousand pay? You'll be an overnight millionaire.

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

#437

Post by flir »

pdonis wrote: post #426
rvense wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has actually been a fairly common position among American libertarians. Alan Greenspan, for instance, was strongly against fraud laws until some time after the financial crisis. The idea was that the market would sort it out. (And no, I don't understand how this is a serious position that serious people can seriously hold, but then that is how I feel about libertarianism in general.)

> American libertarians The term "libertarian" I feel is almost useless as a description of the political views of Americans, because it gets used to describe views that don't make any sense with that label. Greenspan, for instance, often described himself as a libertarian (or "libertarian Republican", whatever that means), but that seems a bit rich for someone who was chairman of one of the most powerful central pla…

It's the thumb on the scales that allows the free market to exist.

Without it there's just men with guns, and men with more guns.

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

#438

Post by httpgetintent »

If the user clicks play on a song video on YouTube, can their intent to distribute copyrighted content be established from just that?

Was there a virus or a relay on that computer at that IP then?

Do government infosec researchers violate copyright of darknet resources when they access them with a browser? Must they disclose their government ID?

Does the enemy have the advantage if they do not limit themselves with copyright?

Which government operations are immune from copyright?

Do you have intent to distribute a copyrighted web page if you click on a URL in a web browser?

Does checking out a library book amount to copyright violation?

Please do not grant censorship rights to big content.

DRM does not prevent people from recording with a videocamera.

Please do not grant big content the ability to disable cameras or mics because of their need for content licensure.

Is it possible to force government agents to disclose their government credentials with copyright entrapment?

Please do not create a censorship backdoor with copyright.

It is telling that nobody has moved to compensate visual artists on YouTube according to fingerprinting.

Which qualify as journalists, researchers, academics, and government agents authorized to reuse copyrighted video clips in a sufficiently transformative compilation?

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

#439

Post by httpgetintent »

httpgetintent wrote: post #438

If the user clicks play on a song video on YouTube, can their intent to distribute copyrighted content be established from just that? Was there a virus or a relay on that computer at that IP then? Do government infosec researchers violate copyright of darknet resources when they access them with a browser? Must they disclose their government ID? Does the enemy have the advantage if they do not limit themselves with c…

It were that private investigations of copyright infringement required presumption of guilt or illegal unauthorized surveillance and illegal search, which jeopardizes criminal investigations.

Can copyright private investigators legally invade computers and homes of agents' kids on false premises?

Do actors and political speech decoys use MK BCI capabilities that nullify intent claims, in P20 file sharing cases too? Are those secure?

Priorities.

Great, more foreign VPNs and copyright blackmail

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

#440

Post by ngneer »

ngneer wrote: post #304

The gall! Next they'll say that "just because we downloaded the content does not mean we USED the content, and you have no proof we used the content, so we are not pirates".

I suppose this comment wasn't adding much to the conversation, or not realistic enough in the context of a legal argument. More to life than law, though.
Post reply on HN