4 ms·
Considering prices for single work, this must be multi-billion dollar compensation. Take for example 675k paid for 31 songs. So 20k a song. If we estimate book
by Ekaros 2y ago
Considering prices for single work, this must be multi-billion dollar compensation.
Take for example 675k paid for 31 songs. So 20k a song. If we estimate book to be say 10MB that would 8 million works. So I think reasonable compensation is something along 163 billion. Not even 10 years of net income. Which I think is entirely fair punishment.
- pinoy420 2y agoFor creating a backup of library genesis. No. They should be awarded a philanthropic prize.
- striking 2y agoThere's evidence of them seeding back as little as possible. I'm not sure how that's "creating a backup".
- ralusek 2y agoThey're talking about creating and releasing Llama...not seeding the torrent
- pseudalopex 2y agoA model is not a backup.
- qup 2y agoThen why are we mad about the copyright stuff?
- striking 2y agoBoth things can be true: * an AI model is not a backup of the contents of all of the books in the sense that it would preserve their contents or similar such it might e.g. be useful for future generations * Meta has (allegedly) been unfairly benefiting / profiting off of the copyrighted work of others by illegally reproducing copies of their work. Not just in the AI model sense[1], but actually (allegedly) downloading them directly from pirate repositories in a way that isn't straightforwardly fair use and even uploading some amount of this pirate data in return. I feel like the parent commenter may have been making the typical argument for preservation of copyrighted materials, and I'm amenable to it... when it's regular people or non-profits doing that work, in a way that doesn't allow them to benefit unfairly or profit off of the hard work of others (or would be connected to such a process in some way). Plaintiffs allege that Meta didn't just do all this, but also talked about how wrong it was and how to mitigate the seeding so they might upload as little as possible. So no matter how you slice it they allegedly 1) knew they were doing something at least a little bit wrong and 2) took steps to prevent the process that might otherwise have preserved the copied materials for the public interest. And I feel like you probably knew all this, but maybe I'm missing something. 1: the typical argument wherein the model wouldn't exist without the ingested data, a lot of it is still in there, it is of course a derivative work and the question is really how derivative is it and what part of the work can they claim is their own contribution
- dizhn 2y agoIn that case they should also be sued for not complying with bittorrent's tit-for-tat ethiquette. Leechers should be punished. :)
- karel-3d 2y agoMeta argues that it's fair use, and that they just downloaded, and never seeded, all the torrents.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoSeeding and downloading are in the same protocol. You can't do one without the other
- HDThoreaun 2y agoWhy comment if you have no idea what youre talking about?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoI've written my own torrent clients. Have you?
- HDThoreaun 2y agoclearly not good ones
- tredre3 2y agoSo have I. So we both know that it's possible to not seed a torrent while downloading it. It's even possible to pretend to seed whilst not transferring anything, just to boost your ratio on a private tracker. That's the protocol we're talking about.
- TheJoeMan 2y agoThe article is purposely conflating the downloading from the seeding statistics. Saying "just 0.008%" the size resulted in big punishments is confusing when Meta is also saying they set their client to be leechers.
- larodi 2y agoNo they never seeded the essence of it ALL :;))
- ricardobeat 2y agoBeyond the absurdity of those amounts, the funny thing is that the authors wouldn’t ever see a dime of that money. Not in the music case, not in this one either. Fairness?