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

Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 471 posts

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#371

Post by dylan604 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #370
dylan604 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If that sounds odd to you then that's probably on purpose, There's been plenty of opportunity to rename copyright to authorrights or something similar Man, that's such an ignorant type of thing to say. Copy does not only mean the act of making a duplicate. Copy also means the words/text directly. Terms like copy editor refer to those that make edits to the copy=>words/text, not those that make edits to the duplicate…

> Man, that's such an ignorant type of thing to say. Copy does not only mean the act of making a duplicate. Copy also means the words/text directly. Terms like copy editor refer to those that make edits to the copy=>words/text, not those that make edits to the duplicates. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the use of the word in that manner, but that's not the rest of the world's problem. That's a limited knowledge proble…

what does that even mean? your sarcasm is so strained it can't even be followed.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#372

Post by victorbjorklund »

contravariant wrote: post #2

Well, I guess it would be nice if we could have some precedent for the claim that downloading copyright protected information is not in itself a breach of copyright. It makes sense from the point of view that distribution is the act protected by copyright, not the mere act of copying . If that sounds odd to you then that's probably on purpose, There's been plenty of opportunity to rename copyright to authorrights or…

That is only in english. Other langues uses different words. So not really useful to argue just based on a superficial def of the word.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#373

Post by johnnyanmac »

icedchai wrote: post #322
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of a book, that could still be seeding a book every few hours..

1 byte per second would give you a couple of pages every few hours. So probably not.

I byte pee second translates to a little over 3KB/hr. Depends on the book.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#374

Post by bodiekane »

stalluri wrote: post #207

Models absorbed the pirated content. Now Meta is distributing those models. Is that considered distribution?

Of course not.

I listened to other people's music and learned some of their songs before writing my own music, that doesn't mean my songs are distribution of theirs.

I read other people's books and short stores and news articles before writing my own, that doesn't mean my writing is distribution of theirs.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#375

Post by achrono »

tombert wrote: post #280
mrweasel wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Meta going to be battling the full legal team of the entertainment industry with this argument? I think Meta did something stupid with this argument, because there is no way that Hollywood or the music industry is going be pleased with a precedence for legally downloading copyrighted material. They will now do everything in their power to get Meta found guilty.

The combined market cap of Disney and Comcast (who owns NBC and the like) is about 350 billion dollars [1][2]. Facebook alone is worth about 1.7 trillion [3]. I had trouble finding exact numbers on this, but it seems like the movie industry itself in the US is worth less than $100 billion. Facebook could simply buy most of the companies involved if they give them too much shit. We've consolidated way too much power i…

Market cap is not money in the bank.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#376

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

contravariant wrote: post #2

Well, I guess it would be nice if we could have some precedent for the claim that downloading copyright protected information is not in itself a breach of copyright. It makes sense from the point of view that distribution is the act protected by copyright, not the mere act of copying . If that sounds odd to you then that's probably on purpose, There's been plenty of opportunity to rename copyright to authorrights or…

"Well, I guess it would be nice if we could have some precedent for the claim that downloading copyright protected information is not in itself a breach of copyright."

According to Meta's motion the claim about "seeding" (cf. the claim about removing CMI) relates to Cal Penal Code 502(c), the "Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act".

Whether the data accessed is "copyright protected information" is irrelevant to section 502(c). 502(c)(2) applies to "any data".

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/sites/default/files/spf/docs/ca-p...

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#377

Post by johnnyanmac »

escapecharacter wrote: post #166
d1sxeyes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more likely, drop the case to avoid establishing a precedent. Sounds like Meta are banking on the entertainment industry looking at it and deciding that the risk of losing this case is too high given Meta’s almost infinitely deep pockets to mount a legal defence.

As much as I dislike the idea of individual copyright owners, like visual artists or writers, having their works scraped for AI without compensation… If this does break the stranglehold that copyright has over creative acts, especially in the US, this feels like a net good.

I love the idea. The problem is that we never even tried to establish some standard licensing system that encourages rewarding the creator while using their copyright. Most people would rather work around and re-invent a slightly bumpoer wheel.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#378

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

mcphage wrote: post #359
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure a good¹ lawyer on the other side would let you get away with claiming Fortunately that’s not how courts work. I’m not familiar with the case, but it’s possible setting a 1 byte per second limit showed intent to not distribute.

It’s also possible that setting a 1 byte per second limit showed they were aware what they were doing was illegal.

Intent matters. I can well imagine a judge saying something like this:

While I am satisfied it has been proven you are aware that by torrenting said files, distribution also occurred. However, I am also satisfied it has been proven that by setting a 1 byte per minute upload limit, you had taken those steps you could to limit uploads in an effort to prevent the prohibited activity. Other evidence presented to the court demonstrates you are regularly employed, that your finances are generally in order, and you have not received payment for the meagre distribution that occurred as a consequence of your behaviour.

It is my opinion that the case brough by the prosecution does not rise to the level of requiring a sentence, nor even a conviction.

You're free to go.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#379

Post by bodiekane »

userbinator wrote: post #54

If this was 15-20 years ago, arguably at the peak of P2P filesharing, I suspect most people would side with Meta.

It's today and everyone on HN still should side with them.

It's a travesty that we let the RIAA and MPAA sue defenseless kids and elderly for impossibly large sums, forced them to settle out of court to avoid expensive legal fees, and then use those acts of terrorism to establish the insane idea that filesharing was tantamount to "theft" or should be restricted.

I hope Meta wins. I hope we see a reversal of the attacks on fair use and the end of abusive fraudulent DMCA takedowns, and I'm happy to finally have a powerful ally in the resistance against oppression from the copyright cartel.

Re: Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

#380

Post by dTal »

mock-possum wrote: post #257
saghm wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that authors having exclusive rights to their works necessarily implies that someone else _receiving_ them is legally culpable though. My admittedly naive thinking is that someone distributing something illegally doesn't necessarily imply that the receiver is also committing crime. If Robin Hood steals a fancy 4K TV from the mansion downtown and gives it to his neighbor as a birthday gift, would the nei…

If Robin Hood sees a nice painting hanging in the castle, then commands a genie to create an exact brush-stroke-by-brush-stroke replica that is identical to the original in every way, then gives the replica to his neighbor as a birthday gift, has any crime even occurred? In this situation, the noble does not own the painting, so much as they possess it and have only been granted a license to privately view it, not a…

>In this situation, the noble does not own the painting, so much as they possess it and have only been granted a license to privately view it, not a license to show it to others, and further license only to reproduce it for their own personal archival purposes

What is the point of making such an "analogy"? Might as well say the noble has a copy of Die Hard in their DVD collection.

Post reply on HN