5 ms·

It's certainly nice to see someone accused of bittorrenting with the bankroll to come up with a decent legal defense team.

Mindwipe 2y ago
This isn't a decent defence, it's a losing desperate one.
- StevenWaterman 2y ago
  The noun phrase was "legal defence team" not "legal defence". A decent team can put forward a poor defence
- guappa 2y ago
  They can just bribe the president.
  - PontifexMinimus 2y ago
    Maybe Trump will legalise internet-based copying. After all, the main people hurt would be Hollywood, which is run by people supporting the Democrats. And it would be popular with many voters (not an issue for Trump but it is for Republicans).
    - rs186 2y ago
      That seems an oversimplification. Counter example: ownership of Amazon MGM Studios and its parent Amazon.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        Selling streaming media is a side business for Amazon (and Apple), an add on as a way to move Amazon Prime and Apple One subscriptions. They would probably benefit by handicapping Netflix/Disney/WBD/etc.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Not sure if he has the power to, and if everyone else will let him, but some EOs opening up the copyright system would be very welcome. There are already some things he's done around this: https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/trump-administration-s-initial-steps-on-ai-and-ip-policy/ https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/trump-admin...
    - _Algernon_ 2y ago
      Inbefore he pardons meta for torrenting.
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    Probably no need. Elon Musk already did that. And one of his companies just published a shiny new version of grok. I wonder where they get their training material. I'm sure it's all just tweets and no stashes of ebooks or other material got downloaded in some way or otherwise fell of the proverbial wagon. Historically, copyright cases fell in favor of big media corporations based on the notion that they were very rich and powerful and could fight things endlessly, bribe/lobby politicians, and cause laws to be changed (e.g. the DMCA). However, AI companies are wealthier still. Some have revenues exceeding the GDPs of most countries. Surely, rich enough to outright buy out some of these media companies. At which point it would stop being copyright infringement because they'd own the copyrights. I'm sure some other arrangement will be found that is less mutually disruptive than a lot of court cases. Both sides are making too much money for anything else to happen. Forget about small book publishers making much of a difference here.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      > Probably no need. Elon Musk already did that. And one of his companies just published a shiny new version of grok. Trump could make Grok, Facebook, Google and OpenAI's actions legal in response to a bribe from Musk. Or he could step up enforcement actions against Facebook, Google and OpenAI while issuing a pardon to Grok.
- yyyk 2y ago
  Meta's real (nigh invincible) defence is 'we have way more money than you and can keep this going forever'.
  - stogot 2y ago
    Money doesn’t keep it going forever, only about 2-4 years, even with appeals That’s enough to bankrupt individuals but industries fighting industries can see it to the end, if they don’t settle
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      2-4 years is optimistic IMO. I’ve seen many copyright disputes carry for 7 years or more.
- scotty79 2y ago
  As the richest man on Earth, with multiple investigations into him by various government agencies shown us, nothing is desperate with billions of dollars "in the bank".
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Yeah, kinda surprised they haven't just flat out denied it, hoped it would blow over.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  At some point I expect we'll see the "shareholders made me do it" defense. You know, the fiduciary-duty-to-keep-making-billions-regardless defense.
mrweasel 2y ago
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.
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  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.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Maybe. But it's hard to see how they could possibly win this case no matter how good their defence team is.
    - d1sxeyes 2y ago
      So, if Meta were found to have been seeding or making copyrighted materials available to others without permission, that's a slam dunk, I think. But Meta's contention is 'you don't have any proof of that'. I think there is enough existing case law and ambiguity in the law as it's written that Meta stand a reasonable (although not a good) chance of being able to argue that they did not commit any crime because a.) they did not create the infringing copy (or that the infringing copy that they received was a technical copy, and they did not create an infringing copy themselves) b.) they did not infringe for private or financial gain (the models they trained on this material were released to the public for free). There's an argument that copyright infringement occurs only upon distribution, and as far as I'm aware, there's no case law that just downloading a copy is illegal. Meta may also be able to argue that their use of the material could be considered 'fair', as it is non-commercial, transformative, and that the use of the material does not harm the market for the original work. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not arguing about the merits of these arguments, just that they seem to me to be plausible.
idiotsecant 2y ago
The unfortunate side effect is that a megacorp gets to vacuum up the sum of human knowledge for free, boil it down, and sell it back to us for a nice profit.
- visarga 2y ago
  Ah you mean like Google Search?
  - moring 2y ago
    Google doesn't "vaccuum up" anything. Every site indexed by Google is still available without using Google at all. They are _copying_ information, not moving or removing it.
    - bolognafairy 2y ago
      And how does downloading a torrent differ from that?
      - notimetorelax 2y ago
        It does not, and both uses are fine.
      - shakna 2y ago
        The sites copied by Google Search explicitly allow it. The books copied by Meta, explicitly disallow it, and require payment for distribution.
        yreg 2y ago
        Information wants to be free.
        shakna 2y ago
        Perhaps. However, information won't be produced, if the already tenuous financial positions of authors is removed. Things should be free, as in speech, not as in beer. Especially in this case. The giants of Silicon Valley could in fact purchase these rights. Few authors care about people personally enjoying a product through otherwise means. They do care about mass distribution without attribution, without royalty, and without regard.

Mindwipe 2y ago

This isn't a decent defence, it's a losing desperate one.

StevenWaterman 2y ago
The noun phrase was "legal defence team" not "legal defence". A decent team can put forward a poor defence
guappa 2y ago
They can just bribe the president.
- PontifexMinimus 2y ago
  Maybe Trump will legalise internet-based copying. After all, the main people hurt would be Hollywood, which is run by people supporting the Democrats. And it would be popular with many voters (not an issue for Trump but it is for Republicans).
  - rs186 2y ago
    That seems an oversimplification. Counter example: ownership of Amazon MGM Studios and its parent Amazon.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Selling streaming media is a side business for Amazon (and Apple), an add on as a way to move Amazon Prime and Apple One subscriptions. They would probably benefit by handicapping Netflix/Disney/WBD/etc.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Not sure if he has the power to, and if everyone else will let him, but some EOs opening up the copyright system would be very welcome. There are already some things he's done around this: https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/trump-administration-s-initial-steps-on-ai-and-ip-policy/ https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/trump-admin...
  - _Algernon_ 2y ago
    Inbefore he pardons meta for torrenting.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  Probably no need. Elon Musk already did that. And one of his companies just published a shiny new version of grok. I wonder where they get their training material. I'm sure it's all just tweets and no stashes of ebooks or other material got downloaded in some way or otherwise fell of the proverbial wagon. Historically, copyright cases fell in favor of big media corporations based on the notion that they were very rich and powerful and could fight things endlessly, bribe/lobby politicians, and cause laws to be changed (e.g. the DMCA). However, AI companies are wealthier still. Some have revenues exceeding the GDPs of most countries. Surely, rich enough to outright buy out some of these media companies. At which point it would stop being copyright infringement because they'd own the copyrights. I'm sure some other arrangement will be found that is less mutually disruptive than a lot of court cases. Both sides are making too much money for anything else to happen. Forget about small book publishers making much of a difference here.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > Probably no need. Elon Musk already did that. And one of his companies just published a shiny new version of grok. Trump could make Grok, Facebook, Google and OpenAI's actions legal in response to a bribe from Musk. Or he could step up enforcement actions against Facebook, Google and OpenAI while issuing a pardon to Grok.
yyyk 2y ago
Meta's real (nigh invincible) defence is 'we have way more money than you and can keep this going forever'.
- stogot 2y ago
  Money doesn’t keep it going forever, only about 2-4 years, even with appeals That’s enough to bankrupt individuals but industries fighting industries can see it to the end, if they don’t settle
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    2-4 years is optimistic IMO. I’ve seen many copyright disputes carry for 7 years or more.
scotty79 2y ago
As the richest man on Earth, with multiple investigations into him by various government agencies shown us, nothing is desperate with billions of dollars "in the bank".
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Yeah, kinda surprised they haven't just flat out denied it, hoped it would blow over.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
At some point I expect we'll see the "shareholders made me do it" defense. You know, the fiduciary-duty-to-keep-making-billions-regardless defense.

mrweasel 2y ago

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.

d1sxeyes 2y ago
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.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Maybe. But it's hard to see how they could possibly win this case no matter how good their defence team is.
  - d1sxeyes 2y ago
    So, if Meta were found to have been seeding or making copyrighted materials available to others without permission, that's a slam dunk, I think. But Meta's contention is 'you don't have any proof of that'. I think there is enough existing case law and ambiguity in the law as it's written that Meta stand a reasonable (although not a good) chance of being able to argue that they did not commit any crime because a.) they did not create the infringing copy (or that the infringing copy that they received was a technical copy, and they did not create an infringing copy themselves) b.) they did not infringe for private or financial gain (the models they trained on this material were released to the public for free). There's an argument that copyright infringement occurs only upon distribution, and as far as I'm aware, there's no case law that just downloading a copy is illegal. Meta may also be able to argue that their use of the material could be considered 'fair', as it is non-commercial, transformative, and that the use of the material does not harm the market for the original work. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not arguing about the merits of these arguments, just that they seem to me to be plausible.

idiotsecant 2y ago

The unfortunate side effect is that a megacorp gets to vacuum up the sum of human knowledge for free, boil it down, and sell it back to us for a nice profit.

visarga 2y ago
Ah you mean like Google Search?
- moring 2y ago
  Google doesn't "vaccuum up" anything. Every site indexed by Google is still available without using Google at all. They are _copying_ information, not moving or removing it.
  - bolognafairy 2y ago
    And how does downloading a torrent differ from that?
    - notimetorelax 2y ago
      It does not, and both uses are fine.
    - shakna 2y ago
      The sites copied by Google Search explicitly allow it. The books copied by Meta, explicitly disallow it, and require payment for distribution.
      - yreg 2y ago
        Information wants to be free.
        shakna 2y ago
        Perhaps. However, information won't be produced, if the already tenuous financial positions of authors is removed. Things should be free, as in speech, not as in beer. Especially in this case. The giants of Silicon Valley could in fact purchase these rights. Few authors care about people personally enjoying a product through otherwise means. They do care about mass distribution without attribution, without royalty, and without regard.