Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

variety.com

161–170 of 484 posts

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#161
post #136
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant?

"American executives have been pushing to criminalise copyright infringement...Why should Zuckerberg be exempt?" Implicit relevence in the comment to which I'm replying.

I think we're misunderstanding one another.

Zuckerberg saying anything about copyright infringement is irrelevant to the actions Meta has taken in consuming and promoting the practice, and he should face criminal liability.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#162
post #36

Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles ... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it). But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that…

And Jstor dropped the lawsuit when Aaron deleted his local copy. DOJ didn't drop theirs. I doubt Meta has deleted their local copy though ...

And also I think MIT didn't defend Aaron but maybe I'm wrong about that

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#163

Shouldn't this stuff trigger RICO? Why do torrent site operators get led off in cuffs for running operations that usually lose money, but Zuck doesn't? RICO specifically cites "criminal infringement of a copyright" as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 2319. If the CEO tells his employees to download hundreds of thousands of works illegally in order to carry out his money-making scheme, how is that not organized crime even i…

[dead]

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#164
post #36

Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles ... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it). But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that…

Aaron Swartz was treated unjustly because copyright sucks. we should oppose such laws and treatment, not wield them as retributive tools against our opponents

it is wrong to advocate for everyone to be treated equally unjustly. better to advocate for the removal of the bad laws/structures

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#165

Shouldn't this stuff trigger RICO? Why do torrent site operators get led off in cuffs for running operations that usually lose money, but Zuck doesn't? RICO specifically cites "criminal infringement of a copyright" as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 2319. If the CEO tells his employees to download hundreds of thousands of works illegally in order to carry out his money-making scheme, how is that not organized crime even i…

> Meta also stripped [copyright management information] from the copyrighted works it stole. It did this to conceal its training sources and facilitate their unauthorized use.

WTF

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#166
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And meta's worth is much more than that. He's not personally paying.

A company being "worth" some amount doesn't mean it has that much money and real property; it means there exist people willing to buy shares, on the margin, at a price which works out like that. One of the common (very rough) approximations is that a business is worth as much as the profit it's expected to make over the next 20 years. But one of the reasons (there are many) that this is only a rough guide, is that if…

That's why billionaires use shares as collateral to get loans. It's money once removed, and it continues to be spendable so long as the share price stays high.

I sincerely doubt that Meta's share price would crash as a result of Zuckerberg getting an expensive judgement.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#169
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you steal a book and read it, should you have to pay every time you use the knowledge gained or recall parts of it from memory?

What if you steal a CD and then play it on your radio station each morning?

even better if it is a pirate radio station

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#170
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, the money he borrows is not taxable. If he sold stock he would have to pay taxes before he could spend the income. Sure, he now owes money to someone, but he can refinance those loans again and again, and live tax-free the rest of his life while we, poor working stiffs, pay the taxes that built the airport where he parks the private jet he bought with the money he borrowed.

People seem to get the weird idea that borrowing against their stock holdings is some special thing rich people get to do with products that the rest of us don't have access to. It's not. Margin loans are widely available to the tune of ff+1%ish or lower, and if your brokerage's publicly offered rates are probably a ripoff, they're almost certainly negotiable. The bar for access to "institutional" rates is basically…

I think people take issue with the taxes loophole. They have GAINED from the VALUE of their stocks, but they don't pay taxes on that. It should be law if you realize value from stocks you pay capital gains on those stocks. So if a loan is collateralized by $1,000,000 worth of stock value taxes should be paid on $1,000,000.
Post reply on HN