141–150 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why are all forums inundated with this ridiculous nonsense? They are "MAGA"? How so? Are people who follow MAGA typically anti-piracy or something? Bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless I'm mistaken, the relevant copyright laws aren't limited to enforcement when money exchanged hands.
No, but it does matter how much money the alleged infringer has. Property law is mostly concerned with protecting the rich from the poor, so when a rich person violates the property of a poor person, the courts can't allow the inversion of purpose and will create something called a "legal fiction," which is basically the kind of bending-over-backwards that my children do to try to claim that they didn't break the rul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you try to download any significant file with zero-upload, you will run out of peers that will share with you much earlier than you will download the file. It's not practical. Most people that speak of leeching or not seeding really are talking about not seeding at all after they've completed. In fact, most clients will let you set upload speeds to a trickle but not zero (zero means unlimited in most clients). Fro…
It’s true that most clients do not support a zero upload configuration, but it’s not inherent to the protocol, and modified clients exist. I’m not aware of any clients that will refuse to share data with clients that are configured to not upload. I don’t even see how they could determine that, especially in situations where there are no other peers to upload to, and given that stats are entirely self-reported and cli…
The case for doing this would be just so you can have this ridiculous legal defence Meta seem to be trying to pull out. Really no other good reason. Even for the most parasitic leeches, zero upload is a bad strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how they were able to recover from that is beyond me.
They didn't. I haven't bought a Metallica album since the black album. That was a decade earlier, because everything since sucked, but as I got older I thought about maybe expanding my tastes. I avoided Metallica specifically for their disrespect of their fans.
Additionally, looking at Google Trends[0], it seems they peaked in 21st-century online popularity in 2008 and had another notable uptick in 2017.
I think a lot of us want the assholes to have suffered real consequences for their behavior, but want is different from did.
[0] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the activists are now against it, because the big guys are doing it. The activists are against it because the big guys are exploiting us small guys, again. Nobody would give a shit if Meta was just torrenting Nintendo's IP and OpenAI was torrenting Netflix IP, except the lawyers working for these companies.
People would care if Meta is allowed to torrent from Nintendo and they aren’t, because they’d care if Meta bought licenses from Nintendo and open models couldn’t get those licenses.
At some point, the contradiction of "law as something impartial" and "law bends to the whims of power" will need to be resolved.
Everything bends to power, by definition. And laws can’t be impartial because they’re not based in hard science: terms like “murder”, “assault”, “theft”, etc. are ambiguous thus up to interpretation (e.g. is a scam theft? If so, what defines a scam? If “lying”, what’s the difference from “misleading”, or if there’s no difference, what defines “misleading”…) My best idea for a solution is better education, so people d…
Feeling very conflicted right now. On the other hand, it'd be absolutely hilarious if they succeeded with this argument. VPN vendors would not find that as hilarious I bet. And on another the hypocrisy is mindboggling. I guess you can't blame the lawyers from going after every angle, but this is quite creative. But really I do just want to find out if money continues to buy justice. I sincerely hope Facebook loses an…
It's a win-win situation. Either pirates win or Meta loses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it does matter how much money the alleged infringer has. Property law is mostly concerned with protecting the rich from the poor, so when a rich person violates the property of a poor person, the courts can't allow the inversion of purpose and will create something called a "legal fiction," which is basically the kind of bending-over-backwards that my children do to try to claim that they didn't break the rul…
This sort of thing used to be heavily downvoted on HN. How the site has changed in the last year.
Some of us are old enough to remember when the RIAA sued children for downloading Metallica albums on filesharing networks. They sued for $100,000 per song, an absurd amount when you consider that even stealing a physical album would amount only to around $1 per song. What was bizarre was that courts took the figure seriously, even if they typically settled cases for around $3,000, still around 30x actual damages. Th…
Your memory may be failing you. The "maxima" you cite still exist, but they are merely statutory damages provisions. In other words, the plaintiffs can obtain such damages without proof of actual loss, i.e. strict liability. If the plaintiffs succeed in pricing actual damages beyond this level, they can obtain them.
Linear arithmetic is one hell of a drug.