4 ms·

I find it highly implausible that Meta doesn't have the resources to obtain these legally. They could have reached out to a publisher and ask to purchase ebooks

I find it highly implausible that Meta doesn't have the resources to obtain these legally. They could have reached out to a publisher and ask to purchase ebooks in bulk - and if that publisher says no, tough shit. The media ecosystem doesn't exist for Big Tech to extract value from it! "It would take a lot of effort to do it legally" is a pathetic excuse for a company of Meta's size.

gazchop 2y ago
Perhaps they did and got told no and decided to take it anyway? Defending themselves with technicalities and expensive lawyers may be financially viable. Zero ethics but what would we expect from them?
- XorNot 2y ago
  Who is "them"? Like, who in the Meta business reporting line made this decision, then how did they communicate it to the engineers who would've been necessary to implement it, particularly at scale? While it's plausible someone downloaded a bunch of torrents and tossed them in the training directory...again, under who's authority? Like if this happened it would be one overzealous data scientist potentially. Hardly "them". People lean on collective pronouns to avoid actually thinking about the mechanics of human enterprise and you get extremely absurd conclusions. (it is not outside the bounds of thinkable that an org could in fact have a very bad culture like this, but I know people who work for Meta, who also have law degrees - they're well aware of the potential problems).
  - aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
    Come on... it's fine that you haven't followed the story, there's a lot going on, but the snotty condescension is very frustrating: These newly unredacted documents reveal exchanges between Meta employees unearthed in the discovery process, like a Meta engineer telling a colleague that they hesitated to access LibGen data because “torrenting from a [Meta-owned] corporate laptop doesn’t feel right ”. They also allege that internal discussions about using LibGen data were escalated to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg (referred to as "MZ" in the memo handed over during discovery) and that Meta's AI team was "approved to use" the pirated material. https://www.wired.com/story/new-documents-unredacted-meta-copyright-ai-lawsuit/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-documents-unredacted-meta-co...
nicoburns 2y ago
> if that publisher says no, tough shit > "It would take a lot of effort to do it legally" is a pathetic excuse for a company of Meta's size. I totally agree. But since when has that stopped companies like Meta. These big companies are built on breaking/skirting the rules.
spaceguillotine 2y ago
explain why release group tags get generated in some videos then
- fzzzy 2y ago
  they are not saying meta didn't use pirated content, just that they have the resources not to if they choose.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Marsymars 2y ago
> I find it highly implausible that Meta doesn't have the resources to obtain these legally. They could have reached out to a publisher and ask to purchase ebooks in bulk - and if that publisher says no, tough shit They could also simply buy controlling stakes in publishers. For scale comparison, Meta is spending upwards $30B per year on AI, and the recent sale of Simon & Schuster that didn't go through was for a mere $2.2B.
- michaelt 2y ago
  I don't think it would actually be that simple. Surely the author only licenses the copyright to the publisher for hardback, paperback and ebook, with an agreed-upon royalty rate? And if someone wants the rights for some other purpose, like translation or making a film or producing merchandise, they have to go to the author and negotiate additional rights? Meta giving a few billion to authors would probably mend a lot of hearts, though.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gazchop 2y ago

Perhaps they did and got told no and decided to take it anyway? Defending themselves with technicalities and expensive lawyers may be financially viable. Zero ethics but what would we expect from them?

XorNot 2y ago
Who is "them"? Like, who in the Meta business reporting line made this decision, then how did they communicate it to the engineers who would've been necessary to implement it, particularly at scale? While it's plausible someone downloaded a bunch of torrents and tossed them in the training directory...again, under who's authority? Like if this happened it would be one overzealous data scientist potentially. Hardly "them". People lean on collective pronouns to avoid actually thinking about the mechanics of human enterprise and you get extremely absurd conclusions. (it is not outside the bounds of thinkable that an org could in fact have a very bad culture like this, but I know people who work for Meta, who also have law degrees - they're well aware of the potential problems).
- aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
  Come on... it's fine that you haven't followed the story, there's a lot going on, but the snotty condescension is very frustrating: These newly unredacted documents reveal exchanges between Meta employees unearthed in the discovery process, like a Meta engineer telling a colleague that they hesitated to access LibGen data because “torrenting from a [Meta-owned] corporate laptop doesn’t feel right ”. They also allege that internal discussions about using LibGen data were escalated to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg (referred to as "MZ" in the memo handed over during discovery) and that Meta's AI team was "approved to use" the pirated material. https://www.wired.com/story/new-documents-unredacted-meta-copyright-ai-lawsuit/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-documents-unredacted-meta-co...

nicoburns 2y ago

> if that publisher says no, tough shit > "It would take a lot of effort to do it legally" is a pathetic excuse for a company of Meta's size. I totally agree. But since when has that stopped companies like Meta. These big companies are built on breaking/skirting the rules.

spaceguillotine 2y ago

explain why release group tags get generated in some videos then

fzzzy 2y ago
they are not saying meta didn't use pirated content, just that they have the resources not to if they choose.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Marsymars 2y ago

> I find it highly implausible that Meta doesn't have the resources to obtain these legally. They could have reached out to a publisher and ask to purchase ebooks in bulk - and if that publisher says no, tough shit They could also simply buy controlling stakes in publishers. For scale comparison, Meta is spending upwards $30B per year on AI, and the recent sale of Simon & Schuster that didn't go through was for a mere $2.2B.

michaelt 2y ago
I don't think it would actually be that simple. Surely the author only licenses the copyright to the publisher for hardback, paperback and ebook, with an agreed-upon royalty rate? And if someone wants the rights for some other purpose, like translation or making a film or producing merchandise, they have to go to the author and negotiate additional rights? Meta giving a few billion to authors would probably mend a lot of hearts, though.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]