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

251–260 of 484 posts

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

#251

Post by websap »

jesse_dot_id wrote: post #131
websap wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The world would be a much better place if these kinds of engineers had a spine.

Yeah they’d have to use it to stand at the back of the unemployment line. Companies don’t care, someone more desperate will take the job.

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

#252

Post by 4k0hz »

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.

Elsevier is shitty to people doing stuff that (imo) should be allowed. Meta is making money doing the same thing and not getting the same shittiness from Elsevier.

Elsevier at least works within the (admittedly broken) system, Meta does not.

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

#253

Post by j-bos »

esseph wrote: post #161
j-bos wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I hear you, though I was replying only to the comment I replied to, so the misunderstanding is more of targe. I don't really care either way, was more being pedantic regarding the comment's internal premise and conclusion.

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

#255

Post by hsuduebc2 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #205
qingcharles wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What's frustrating is that I don't even consider infringement to be a crime. Why are you all so upset about this, rather than his real crimes?

I'm kinda being upset because on top of his ridiculously amoral and sometimes illegal behavior there are people which lives were ruined because they shared few mp3 files. Now this person once again — have absolutely no responsibility for his actions even for something so idiotic like copyright infringement when others were severely punished.

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

#256

Post by collabs »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #241
Our_Benefactors wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally none of these things are defensible positions, so nobody will take you seriously.

Many of the things I wrote are already happening. The others probably are but haven't been reported yet.

I think Anthorpic has pledged to not use team and enterprise user's data for training purposes. I don't mind if they do some verification or whatever as long as it doesn't end up in the responses it gives others.

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

#257

Post by esseph »

lenerdenator wrote: post #174
esseph wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure how you jail a company. You jail the CEO and the others will stand up and take note. "But they'll complain" who gives a fuck.

In this case, they'll be right. That, again, is the purpose of incorporation. It's also the same concept that keeps someone from emptying out all of your personal bank accounts if your small business gets sued. What you'd need is something that either removes that protection past a certain amount of value, or, to tell entities like Meta - which are basically sole proprietorships with window dressing - that they're no…

> It's also the same concept that keeps someone from emptying out all of your personal bank accounts if your small business gets sued.

Unless you have an SBA loan. Then the suing party can't get blood from a stone, but the federal government sure can.

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

#259

Post by triceratops »

qarl wrote: post #127
triceratops wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law Correct. Because until very recently there was no need.

AH. So you agree that it's not illegal.

What isn't?

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

#260

Post by j-bos »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #205
qingcharles wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What's frustrating is that I don't even consider infringement to be a crime. Why are you all so upset about this, rather than his real crimes?

It's the increase in emotionality, principles loosely held, it allows a particular goal they get tossed, Tbc this extends far beyond the current topic and commenters.
Post reply on HN