4 ms·

Both the headline and the theme of the story are incorrect and misleading. Meta isn’t claiming that everything they’re doing is lawful. They’re claiming that th

Both the headline and the theme of the story are incorrect and misleading. Meta isn’t claiming that everything they’re doing is lawful. They’re claiming that their activities don’t run afoul of a particular California state law, CDAFA, and section 1202(b)(1) of the DMCA. It’s very common in litigation for the plaintiff to accuse the defendant of every violation they might be guilty of or liable for (“throwing the book at them”), and for defendants then to systematically try to strip them away. As far as I know, Meta is not yet claiming their activities were completely lawful. Here is the actual filing: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Kadrey-v-Meta-Reply-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-2-20-25.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Kadre...

braiamp 2y ago
> Meta responded to this complaint with a motion to dismiss. In a supporting reply filed on Tuesday, the company notes that the ‘torrenting’ allegations, relating to the removal of copyright information and the CDAFA violations, don’t hold up. They are addressing both the second and third counts. The "Direct Copyright Infringement" isn't being addressed by these claims. This is even quoted on the filing you provided: https://torrentfreak.com/images/seedingprecautions.jpg.webp https://torrentfreak.com/images/seedingprecautions.jpg.webp
- otterley 2y ago
  How does your response conflict with what I said?
tiahura 2y ago
Won't named plaintiffs have the burden of proving meta actually seeded blocks containing their works? How could they ever do that?
- otterley 2y ago
  The plaintiffs do have the burden of proof, but there are many ways to Rome. Any evidence they can find, whether it be packet captures, client and server logs, incriminating emails, or even admissions, will be proffered to the court and/or jury.
  - tiahura 2y ago
    many ways to Rome Fair enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if none of those methods pan out. 1) Given the timeline, it seems unlikely that anyone was doing a packet capture. 2) Why would anyone at META have been paying attention to, or logging, which blocks were being seeded and which weren't? Who would have personal knowledge such that they could admit that transmission didn't seed the declaration of independence 6 million times?
    - otterley 2y ago
      Again, they don’t have to trace actual data flows to have sufficient evidence to convince a court or jury that Meta is in breach of the law. Other examples of evidence include an admission from a Meta employee during a deposition that they were instructed to download a bunch of copyrighted material and the undertook the efforts to do so. Or, perhaps the plaintiffs seized the machines used in the scheme (happens all the time following a TRO and discovery motion) and found whole copies or traces of the copyrighted works on them, or even local client logs that suggest that it was done.
- papercrane 2y ago
  The plaintiffs will, eventually, need to prove that their claim is likely true ("preponderance of the evidence" standard.) Right now they're fighting about expanding discovery to try and uncover more evidence.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Company emails, internal server logs.
  - tiahura 2y ago
    Server logs of what? Transmission doesn't log which blocks it seeded. Does any client?
    - JKCalhoun 2y ago
      Router logs? I have no idea. I just suspect that, somewhere in the complicated cabling of Ethernet, there's a device that has been logging packets.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Feels like their defense for some state incursion is an admission of a larger crime. I still don't get it. I'm not going to murder someone, steal their car, then put out a statement that I was unaware the car had expired tags and I shouldn't be prosecuted for it.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  Is this your first experience/exposure to the us legal system? Defending yourself from an accusation using a hypothetical admission doesn't actually admit to it. e.g. I didn't murder anyone, and I didn't steal that car, but if even if I did murder them, and steal their car, the car's expired tags wouldn't apply to me because [reason]. If you care about justice, you want to enable every truth to come out, and be decided on. If you prohibit someone from making an argument, because it might imply something that is separate, you limit the the possible outcomes to something strictly less fair. If someone did murder a person them and took their car, they should be prosecuted for that, but just because you did commit crime a, and crime b, doesn't mean you should be convicted of crime c. Even if crime c is the least significant. That's still not just.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  Of course you will if you've been caught and charges are being filed and there's evidence you were in the car.
- gosub100 2y ago
  A YouTube video I saw talked about the charges faced by the accused killer of the United Healthcare CEO. Aside from murder , he faced: - criminal possession of a weapon - illegal possession of a silencer - illegal possession of an automatic weapon (it wasn't full auto, but somehow due to the large capacity magazine, NY state considers it an automatic weapon) So had he used a hammer or a knife, he might be able to get out again because murderers in NYS can be out in as little as 20 years. But all the firearms charges can effectively double his sentence.

braiamp 2y ago

> Meta responded to this complaint with a motion to dismiss. In a supporting reply filed on Tuesday, the company notes that the ‘torrenting’ allegations, relating to the removal of copyright information and the CDAFA violations, don’t hold up. They are addressing both the second and third counts. The "Direct Copyright Infringement" isn't being addressed by these claims. This is even quoted on the filing you provided: https://torrentfreak.com/images/seedingprecautions.jpg.webp https://torrentfreak.com/images/seedingprecautions.jpg.webp

otterley 2y ago
How does your response conflict with what I said?

tiahura 2y ago

Won't named plaintiffs have the burden of proving meta actually seeded blocks containing their works? How could they ever do that?

otterley 2y ago
The plaintiffs do have the burden of proof, but there are many ways to Rome. Any evidence they can find, whether it be packet captures, client and server logs, incriminating emails, or even admissions, will be proffered to the court and/or jury.
- tiahura 2y ago
  many ways to Rome Fair enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if none of those methods pan out. 1) Given the timeline, it seems unlikely that anyone was doing a packet capture. 2) Why would anyone at META have been paying attention to, or logging, which blocks were being seeded and which weren't? Who would have personal knowledge such that they could admit that transmission didn't seed the declaration of independence 6 million times?
  - otterley 2y ago
    Again, they don’t have to trace actual data flows to have sufficient evidence to convince a court or jury that Meta is in breach of the law. Other examples of evidence include an admission from a Meta employee during a deposition that they were instructed to download a bunch of copyrighted material and the undertook the efforts to do so. Or, perhaps the plaintiffs seized the machines used in the scheme (happens all the time following a TRO and discovery motion) and found whole copies or traces of the copyrighted works on them, or even local client logs that suggest that it was done.
papercrane 2y ago
The plaintiffs will, eventually, need to prove that their claim is likely true ("preponderance of the evidence" standard.) Right now they're fighting about expanding discovery to try and uncover more evidence.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Company emails, internal server logs.
- tiahura 2y ago
  Server logs of what? Transmission doesn't log which blocks it seeded. Does any client?
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    Router logs? I have no idea. I just suspect that, somewhere in the complicated cabling of Ethernet, there's a device that has been logging packets.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Feels like their defense for some state incursion is an admission of a larger crime. I still don't get it. I'm not going to murder someone, steal their car, then put out a statement that I was unaware the car had expired tags and I shouldn't be prosecuted for it.

grayhatter 2y ago
Is this your first experience/exposure to the us legal system? Defending yourself from an accusation using a hypothetical admission doesn't actually admit to it. e.g. I didn't murder anyone, and I didn't steal that car, but if even if I did murder them, and steal their car, the car's expired tags wouldn't apply to me because [reason]. If you care about justice, you want to enable every truth to come out, and be decided on. If you prohibit someone from making an argument, because it might imply something that is separate, you limit the the possible outcomes to something strictly less fair. If someone did murder a person them and took their car, they should be prosecuted for that, but just because you did commit crime a, and crime b, doesn't mean you should be convicted of crime c. Even if crime c is the least significant. That's still not just.
BeetleB 2y ago
Of course you will if you've been caught and charges are being filed and there's evidence you were in the car.
gosub100 2y ago
A YouTube video I saw talked about the charges faced by the accused killer of the United Healthcare CEO. Aside from murder , he faced: - criminal possession of a weapon - illegal possession of a silencer - illegal possession of an automatic weapon (it wasn't full auto, but somehow due to the large capacity magazine, NY state considers it an automatic weapon) So had he used a hammer or a knife, he might be able to get out again because murderers in NYS can be out in as little as 20 years. But all the firearms charges can effectively double his sentence.