Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 484 posts

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

#181

Post by nielsbot »

bamboozled wrote: post #134
ben_w wrote: post #2

A lot of people would be very pleased if this leads to Zuckerberg getting even the statutory minimum damages ($750?) on each infringement. The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pir…

There will be not a single consequence for any of this.

In a just system there would be jail time (if found guilty). Barring that a modest fine. Say, $1T.

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

#182

Post by qingcharles »

ben_w wrote: post #2

A lot of people would be very pleased if this leads to Zuckerberg getting even the statutory minimum damages ($750?) on each infringement. The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pir…

What's frustrating is all those kids who got criminal charges for running MP3 sites back in the day [1], and this guy rips off every piece of media in existence and will walk away literally because he's too rich to be charged.

[1] See, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace#Legal_pro...

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

#183

Post by qingcharles »

lesuorac wrote: post #132
ipython wrote: 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 ...

It's absolutely unthinkable that Meta and friends aren't still using a corpus containing the entirety of every book they can obtain. There is no way they're building frontier LLMs without it. You can be sure as hell the Chinese are doing it, so the US corps are absolutely still doing it.

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

#184

Post by k33n »

solid_fuel wrote: post #178
zx8080 wrote: post #177

Can someone explain why are we reading this instead of "Meta was fined for copyright infrigement" news?

In 2024, voters signaled that they don't care about corruption when they reelected the most corrupt administration in American history. Since then, there has been a widespread understanding that the rich will not face consequences in this country. For example, take a look at the Trump administration's suppression of the Epstein files. Or the Trump families cryptocurrency schemes. Or the ridiculous ballroom. Anyway, t…

[flagged]

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

#185

Post by tintor »

ginko wrote: post #124
Lammy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't going to be able to make me anti-piracy just because some corpo benefits from it too.

People who don't believe in copyright shouldn't be punished for "breaking" it. Corporations believe in copyright so if they "break" it they should get punished for breaking rules they made up themselves. Generally the law should be more strict for corporations than for real people. edit: People downvoting can you argue why you disagree? I do think it's fair for the law to be more strict on the powerful rather than on…

but it is easier to enforce law on the powerless

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

#186

Post by grebc »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #170
naniwaduni wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn’t exactly call it a loophole as such. And you can’t just Willy Nilly tax loan values.

Any asset a bank is willing to take is collateral has the same issue, it’s just very pronounced in this instance.

If you take your idea at face value, anyone who borrows against their property to renovate/upgrade would be up for tax.

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

#187

Post by 2ndorderthought »

zx8080 wrote: post #177

Can someone explain why are we reading this instead of "Meta was fined for copyright infrigement" news?

Because meta will delay any case for several years. Then the lawyers will settle for 1/100th to 1/1000th of what they stole quietly. Meta will rebrand and change its name again just like it did after its last major scandal.

No accountability for rich people has funny patterns like this.

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

#188

Post by dehrmann »

grebc wrote: post #29
ben_w wrote: post #2

A lot of people would be very pleased if this leads to Zuckerberg getting even the statutory minimum damages ($750?) on each infringement. The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pir…

Nothing will happen to him/Meta while DJT is president. He bought the best protection around for breaking the law.

I'm not sure what Trump's levers are with this since it's a civil matter. There's no DOJ--it's publishers and an individual vs. Meta.

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

#189

Post by 2ndorderthought »

k33n wrote: post #184
solid_fuel wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2024, voters signaled that they don't care about corruption when they reelected the most corrupt administration in American history. Since then, there has been a widespread understanding that the rich will not face consequences in this country. For example, take a look at the Trump administration's suppression of the Epstein files. Or the Trump families cryptocurrency schemes. Or the ridiculous ballroom. Anyway, t…

[flagged]

This is rage bait and isn't worth spending any oxygen on it.

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

#190

Post by eloisius »

modeless wrote: post #180

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. I’m also in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing small amounts of pot for personal use. That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the economy, and companies looking for new ways to add methamphetamine to every goddamn product.
Post reply on HN