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

371–380 of 484 posts

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

#371

Post by ethbr1 »

timcobb wrote: post #319
ethbr1 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get Al Capone on the charge you can make stick.

Right but Al Capone did jail time, here Zuck gets to break and enter into people's homes, take their stuff, then haggle for it after-the-fact, all the while keeping the civilization-domination apparatus that he built using the stuff he stole? That is super not fair. Ordinary people could certainly not get away with that.

The US justice system doesn't start from fair. It starts from what you can prove to the letter of the law.

And when you're targeting someone / something with unlimited lawyers, you'd better have ironclad evidence that exactly that happened in exactly the way the claim is written.

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

#373

Post by j-bos »

Aurornis wrote: post #294
Telaneo wrote: post #138

Looking forward to the personal liability. I've wondered what the legalese justification for letting liability evaporate as it does so often with corps. So far the reasons I'm left with are ' shrugs ' and 'the relevant provision (seemingly? apparently?) simply don't apply', neither of which are any good. I was going to make a joke about how we should attach magnets to Aaron Swartz' corpse, since that'd make for a pre…

The handling of Aaron Swartz’s case was a travesty, but he wasn’t indicted for piracy. The charges were for fraud, unlawfully accessing a protected computer, and damaging a computer. In the years since the basis of the case has been forgotten and replaced with an assumption about piracy, but it was a case about unlawful access.

Yeah, cpaa is a loaded gun pointed at anyone who's ever touched a computer.

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

#375

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

k33n wrote: post #354
throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably this, since it was 7 years after he was convicted for prostituting a minor, so its hard to believe any excuse saying they didn't know his background: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/epstein-secret-pic-wild-... Also that there are over 2,000 emails with Peter Thiel. Or maybe the part where Sergey Brin was helping Epstein shop for an aircraft carrier (also after conviction). Honestly it was incredibly reve…

It’s terrible that Epstein did that. And Thiel is a really odd duck, that’s for sure. Do you have any evidence that files related to Trump were held back? I don’t believe that’s the case. He’s mentioned in many of the files. I found it particularly interesting that Trump was an FBI informant that worked with the government to get Epstein convicted. Have you done more than Trump has done to stop human trafficking? If…

There is zero evidence Trump informed the FBI about Epstein.

Trump was Epstein's close friend for many years. There are many photos of Trump partying with Epstein and young women.

It is impossible that Trump did not know what Epstein was up to. At a minimum, he knew about tremendous abuse of children and did nothing to stop it, despite being a wealthy and powerful man. At worst, he fully participated.

Fuck you and your willingness to be misled.

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

#376

Post by 2ndorderthought »

KPGv2 wrote: post #271
throwawayIche9j wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Depending on local laws, stealing a car may not actually be theft if the defendent can prove they intended to return it before the owner got home from work I doubt there's even one place where the law works like that.

> I doubt there's even one place where the law works like that. In a lot of places, that's how it works. A key element of theft is the intent to permanently deprive someone of property. This is why joyriding isn't classified as auto theft and is instead a lesser offense. It's because joyriding is an intent to temporarily deprive, while GTA is an intent to permanently deprive. In some jxns (the UK is one), there is a…

Yea in the us if someone tries to steal your car and you are in it or threatened by it you can shoot them dead or something like that (ianal) You may have a court day but in many situations no punishment will follow.

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

#377

Post by 2ndorderthought »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #284
KPGv2 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My God, I can't believe chodes are still playing this "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" navel gazing semantic argument. Thirty years at least, it was all you saw on fin de ciecle Slashdot from anyone with a six-digit UID. No one cares about your hyper literalist meaning of "theft," that's not the goddamn point. Christ, this place looks like Reddit more and more. This isn't a court of law. We don't ha…

> If you replaced "theft" with "copyright infringement" in the comment you had such a problem with, what meaningfully changes besides we all have about five additional brain cells? The obvious difference that copyright is subject to fair use and various other limitations that personal property isn't.

Ever hear of Aaron swartz?

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

#378

Post by blks »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #346
blks wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you talking about this case that case nothing to do with the topic at hand? The comment you’re replying to gives a very clear and narrow analogy, and you’re talking about something else.

How is it something else? It's the same analogy. The problem with it is that the harm from the alleged theft doesn't require any use of the original material in order to happen, since that "harm" is competition rather than expropriation. The attempt to distinguish them is through copying, but that's the part that isn't depriving anyone of anything.

The main point here is _using_ copyrighted materials to create a commercial product, that you then sell, that may be used as alternative or substitute for the original materials. You’re missing that point and talking about two independent projects competing.

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

#379

Post by 2ndorderthought »

collabs wrote: post #256
2ndorderthought wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have an amazing timeshare for sale and you seem like someone who would really see the opportunity this provides. How are your financials?

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

#380

Post by 2ndorderthought »

KPGv2 wrote: post #273
collabs wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes yes and google pledged "don't be evil" Don't be naïve. A corporation would tear the flesh from your body if it meant a better quarterly earnings report.

Having seen someone die at work, this is factual. The comments made during and after were eye opening.
Post reply on HN