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

Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 289 posts

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#171

Post by petre »

DaSHacka wrote: post #145
dotancohen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did they not? Seems like they're still quite popular, and I knew people in HS (for reference, late 2010s to early '20s) that were big into the band. 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 .…

Yeah, they're popular like Ariana Grande is after the Manchester bombing. But just about everything they released after the Black album is kind of lame. The Budapest tickets sold out pretty fast, but they're still lame regardless if people go to their concerts. Compared to Depeche Mode and other bands that only get better with age, Metallica just play the same old songs or worse. And they're not a cult band like Death or The Sisters of Mercy either.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#172

Post by gzread »

tyteddffc wrote: post #158
47282847 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re correct about seeds, but peers who are also downloading will often stop sharing with you if you stop sharing with them. Seeds generally are configured to try to give different pieces to different peers so that they can send them to each other and reduce load on the seed; they don’t want to give you the entire file directly unless you’re the only person downloading. And peers prioritize and filter which other o…

Long-running torrents are mostly populated by seeders. Bit torrent was originally designed for a lot of downloaders to get a file at the same time with limited seeding bandwidth, so leechers would need to trade with each other a lot, but that's not really the situation most torrents are in today.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#173

Post by wfurney »

qingcharles wrote: post #155
dotancohen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been often said that a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.

Judges often roll this line out, but in criminal court I've seen some defendants get epic deals by going without a lawyer [0] since absolutely nobody in the justice system wants to deal with the guy who has no idea what he's doing and is going to make the most bizarre arguments about being a sovereign citizen. So they give them a really low offer and get them on their way as quickly as possible. [0] I don't like to s…

Interesting point that I haven't thought about before, thanks for sharing.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#174

Post by mindslight »

throw10920 wrote: post #141
budsniffer95o wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It [calling anything you don't like "maga"] is political in-group signalling of a tribal ideology that also serves the dual purpose of destroying the meaning of language. Categorically inappropriate for HN - flag it and move on.

Or it's just going to be a generic term for play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Surely in a thread like this we can acknowledge the futility of things like Xerox trying to maintain their strict definition of the word xerox.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#175

Post by luqtas »

AlienRobot wrote: post #135
everdrive wrote: post #122

Everyone's pointing out the obvious hypocrisy here, but I think it's more interesting if Meta succeeds in making this argument: can I just steal any book I want and share it with anyone? Does the same apply to music, movies, TV shows, and video games?

Only if you are Facebook.

but if i'm Facebook, can't i pay thousands books?

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#176

Post by tzs »

themafia wrote: post #134
tzs wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are off a bit on the numbers. First, though, the RIAA suits were not for downloading. The suits were for distribution. Here is how their enforcement actions generally went. 1. They would initially send a letter asking for around $3 per song that was being shared, threatening to sue if not paid. This typically came to a total in the $2-3k range. There were a few where the initial request was for much more such as…

> the RIAA suits were not for downloading They were not all the same, some were fairly complicated cases, and one was undoubtedly for distribution. `The court’s instructions defined “reproduction” to include “[t]he act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network.”' From: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/11-282...

What I should have said is that all their lawsuits included an allegation of infringing the distribution right. There weren't any as far as I know that were just downloading.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#177

Post by WalterBright »

moron4hire wrote: post #149
gzread wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of thing used to be heavily downvoted on HN. How the site has changed in the last year.

Yes, the VC-backed startup ecosystem that was the origin of this website does rely on propagating the myth that we live in a meritocracy to ensure it has enough cheap labor to build prototypes that its anointed few can acquire at rock bottom pricing. But we've been through enough cycles of it now that we've started seeing the patterns.

> rock bottom pricing

Value is not set by what you put into it, it is set by what people are willing to pay for it.

Browsing in a thrift store can be very enlightening!

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#178

Post by mindslight »

armchairhacker wrote: post #68
willis936 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like there has been some change in principle and some sort of knife to sharpen. "2005 personal pirate" was about making art accessible. "2025 corpo pirate" is about killing art.

LLMs make pirated art more accessible, and 2005 pirates allegedly harmed artists by decreasing their sales. The significant change is that 2025 corpo pirates are big corporations, and 2005 personal pirates are individuals. And I think the larger issue is that the big corpo pirates get away with what 2025 personal pirates wouldn’t. Anyways, my opinion is that we should get rid of IP, but only with a replacement that e…

> LLMs make pirated art more accessible

lol. The current "AI" industry is in the development phase where the surveillance industry was from 2000-2010 or so. After they're done getting everyone reliant on their products (including giving away many for free), and having installed their regulatory mote, they'll really start tightening the enshittification noose.

The original argument is fallacious because it ignores this obvious dynamic. "AI" companies aren't pirating works so they can then give them away for free indefinitely. Rather they are pirating works to create their own proprietary systems which will most certainly not be given away for free.

Eventually the activists pushing for copyright enforcement on "AI" training are going to start to "win" - after the big centralized "AI" players will have brokered deals with the relevant content cartels (this lawsuit is merely "haggling over the price"). So the dynamic will be to stomp out the training of new competing models, both grassroots libre and new proprietary startup competitors.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#179

Post by Terr_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #177
moron4hire wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the VC-backed startup ecosystem that was the origin of this website does rely on propagating the myth that we live in a meritocracy to ensure it has enough cheap labor to build prototypes that its anointed few can acquire at rock bottom pricing. But we've been through enough cycles of it now that we've started seeing the patterns.

> rock bottom pricing Value is not set by what you put into it, it is set by what people are willing to pay for it. Browsing in a thrift store can be very enlightening!

> Value is not set by what you put into it, it is set by what people are willing to pay for it.

Is a human life literally worthless, because they never pay to be born?

The map is not the territory, the price is not the value.

Re: Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues

#180

Post by DiskoHexyl »

petre wrote: post #171
DaSHacka wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they not? Seems like they're still quite popular, and I knew people in HS (for reference, late 2010s to early '20s) that were big into the band. 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 .…

Yeah, they're popular like Ariana Grande is after the Manchester bombing. But just about everything they released after the Black album is kind of lame. The Budapest tickets sold out pretty fast, but they're still lame regardless if people go to their concerts. Compared to Depeche Mode and other bands that only get better with age, Metallica just play the same old songs or worse. And they're not a cult band like Deat…

But they kind of are (a cult band). Most people in the world know Metalica while hardly anyone ever heard any of the Sisters Of Mercy's tracks.

Normal people don't care- they just enjoy a ballad or two.

I've long since learnt to separate an artist from their art- a fair share of the musicians, actors, directors etc aren't really a decent bunch

Post reply on HN