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

Post by esseph » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:35 PM UTC

lenerdenator wrote: post #73

ginko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this controversial? Executives should be held liable, certainly moreso than just regular people sharing files.

For better or for worse, the idea behind incorporation is that you, as an owner of part or all of the company, are separated from it financially and legally in most circumstances. Zuckerberg may be CEO, majority shareholder, and on the board of Meta, but he didn't break copyright law, Meta did. So if there were to be a consequence, Meta would pay out the fine. Not sure how you jail a company. Now, in a company with a…

Post by qarl » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #108

qarl wrote: post #6

I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…

> I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? Yes it's very different. Humans need to eat, sleep, and pay taxes. You also have to pay them competitive wages.

Post by mil22 » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:38 PM UTC

28304283409234 wrote: post #5

So... "move fast and steal things"?

Post by qarl » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:41 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #114

qarl wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure your argument is supported by the actual law as written.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48029673 There's nothing in the law to support your argument either. The law however does say, very unambiguously, that copying without permission isn't allowed . There aren't exceptions for "training" just because it's superficially similar to a human activity (reading a book). A human isn't allowed to hand-copy Harry Potter . Even if they bought all the Harry Potter books.

Post by litoE » Tue, May 05, 2026, 10:46 PM UTC

financetechbro wrote: post #99

ben_w wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Zuck can just take out loans against his equity. He doesn’t need to sell any of it to benefit from Metas “worth”