Oh boy. I will need to thank Zuckerberg for let me downloading free books without being guilty
Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
451–460 of 471 posts
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone, self representing, and with the very intention to lose, keep going this battle? I don't know, there are 70tb of books, could someone who had published under their name carry on independently?
Anybody can sue anybody, and this someone in your example would likely have standing, so why not? A single person self representing against a company that is essentially one of the largest law firms on the planet, and can outspend them tens of thousands times over - what's to be gained?
create jurisdiction that downloading torrent is not illegal in the US
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 expen…
Also a way to get yourself in jail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your test for when a use is ok and being held back by copyright law versus when it's damaging? Why is one ok but not the other?
I've seen the most people take the most issue with the insane "authors life + Xx years" that copyright lasts for, not really components of fair use.
Yeah it shouldn’t be much more than a decade imo. Being able to sit on a copyright for many many decades is genuinely just rent seeking, and bad for everyone.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#455If this was 15-20 years ago, arguably at the peak of P2P filesharing, I suspect most people would side with Meta.
It's today and everyone on HN still should side with them. It's a travesty that we let the RIAA and MPAA sue defenseless kids and elderly for impossibly large sums, forced them to settle out of court to avoid expensive legal fees, and then use those acts of terrorism to establish the insane idea that filesharing was tantamount to "theft" or should be restricted. I hope Meta wins. I hope we see a reversal of the attac…
Okay so here’s the issue for me. I totally hate copyright, and think it should be abolished or heavily reduced. At the same time, I hate Facebook for its ruthlessly immoral business practices. Should I be happy that Facebook gets to fuck over a bunch of authors because it’s a big, successful company rather than joe schmoe? Does the face they’re ignoring a law I don’t happen to like make it fine that the trillion dollar company can ignore the justice system and do whatever? They aren’t your friend; if they can they’ll change the law to make it specifically only legal when training models.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#456Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#457Earlier 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. 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 s…
> 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. If the DVD doesn't have strong DRM (which is pretty rare, CSS counts as strong DRM) you are allowed to make a private copy in Finland. There is a levy on various storage medium…
Huh, you are absolutely right. I think I knew about the private copying levy but didn't consider it when writing my original comment.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#458I wont be shocked it if turns out Meta has been using users Meta apps on their phones to pull this off.
Like a giant bot net, just pull small amount of data, send home. Not enough for anyone to notice, but large enough user base to sum all the small segments together and download without Meta directly seeding anything back.
Or just rented for a bunch of seedboxes anonymously
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#459Earlier 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…
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...
It doesn't moot the argument just makes it slightly more complicated. Not only is current copryight very far from what a normal human would understand as a limited time but that is not the only restriction there - this power is also given with a specific purpose that current copyright does not effectively serve.
Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
your TV example is a bad example for discussions around copyright — how does one copy a TV? a more pertinent example to the main topic at hand i download a file onto my PC. in doing so i have made a copy of that file onto my PC. if that file is a copyrighted work, e.g. a musical work, i have reproduced the work by downloading it. i have copied it. streaming music is covered by copyright for the same reason - a copy i…
> i download a file onto my PC. in doing so i have made a copy of that file onto my PC. It's even deeper than that. Legally, you are also making a copy when you load the file into RAM to play it.
But you're not making a copy when your eyes focus the image on your retina?