Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

Post by codedokode » Tue, Jul 22, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #198

codedokode wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, if AI companies are allowed to download pirated content for "learning", why ordinary people cannot.

>why ordinary people cannot They can. I don't think anyone got prosecuted for using an illegal streaming site or downloading from sci-hub, for instance. What people do get sued for is seeding, which counts as distribution. If anything AI companies are getting prosecuted more aggressively than "ordinary people", presumably because of their scale. In a recent lawsuit Anthropic won on the part about AI training on books…

Post by d1sxeyes » Tue, Jul 22, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

jajko wrote: post #200

d1sxeyes wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. All the big bankrupting level fines have been for both downloading and sharing. You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and that is true, but the main…

You contradict yourself. There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves, and made into example case with massive fines. If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading. Property rights holders don't care about details, as long as you tick the box of sending a single packet to somebody, off to court with ya.

Post by actionfromafar » Tue, Jul 22, 2025, 2:30 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #223

0points wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...

>with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Reme…

Post by gruez » Tue, Jul 22, 2025, 2:35 PM UTC

actionfromafar wrote: post #226

gruez wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Reme…

DHCP addresses often shuffle on reboots. I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do.

Post by d1sxeyes » Tue, Jul 22, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #228

actionfromafar wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHCP addresses often shuffle on reboots. I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do.

>I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do. How hard could it be to keep DHCP logs? Assuming they exist at all, what would cause it to be incorrect?