4 ms·

What's frustrating is that I don't even consider infringement to be a crime. Why are you all so upset about this, rather than his real crimes?

bix6 5mo ago
What are his real crimes?
stubish 5mo ago
Lets define more things society doesn't want to happen as not-crimes so we can do more of them.
qingcharles 5mo ago
Why not both?
ethbr1 5mo ago
You get Al Capone on the charge you can make stick.
- timcobb 5mo ago
  Right but Al Capone did jail time, here Zuck gets to break and enter into people's homes, take their stuff, then haggle for it after-the-fact, all the while keeping the civilization-domination apparatus that he built using the stuff he stole? That is super not fair. Ordinary people could certainly not get away with that.
  - ethbr1 5mo ago
    The US justice system doesn't start from fair. It starts from what you can prove to the letter of the law. And when you're targeting someone / something with unlimited lawyers, you'd better have ironclad evidence that exactly that happened in exactly the way the claim is written.
    - timcobb 5mo ago
      Okay, sure, but I'm talking about being satisfied. I understand reality and that I may not get the satisfaction I would like. And specifically the example of Al Capone who was, yeah, got for tax evasion, but at least was treated ultimately like the criminal he was.
      - ethbr1 5mo ago
        I mean, he was sentenced to 11 years and served 7 1/2. But untreated (at the time, no penicillin) syphilis turned him into a mental pre-teen after his release, so I guess the universe serves some justice where the laws of the land do not.
hsuduebc2 5mo ago
I'm kinda being upset because on top of his ridiculously amoral and sometimes illegal behavior there are people which lives were ruined because they shared few mp3 files. Now this person once again — have absolutely no responsibility for his actions even for something so idiotic like copyright infringement when others were severely punished.
j-bos 5mo ago
It's the increase in emotionality, principles loosely held, it allows a particular goal they get tossed, Tbc this extends far beyond the current topic and commenters.
archagon 5mo ago
Because the rich can do it and we can’t.
- protocolture 5mo ago
  I do it literally all the time.
  - cestith 5mo ago
    You pirate other people’s works for profit all the time?
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
      Since when has Meta profited off of this shit? I don't know why their stock price hasn't cratered yet, but it's not because they're raking in the big cash training LLMs on 40 yr old cookbooks.
      - cestith 5mo ago
        The Metaverse wasn’t a great success either, but do you think the motive wasn’t profit? Do you think Meta is a public benefit corporation?
        NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
        We could have a conversation about that. Or rather, I could have a conversation about it with someone intelligent, who can actually appreciate nuance and detail. You've got some sort of mental caricature of mustache-twirling billionaires, where everything is "profit". It's pretty clear that Meta wasn't about profit, given that no amount of "sunk cost" could explain what happened. That had more to do with self-aggrandizement and his belief that he was some sort of digital messiah that would get to usher humanity into another world.
        5mo ago
verisimi 5mo ago
Principles and law (that determines 'crime', a legal word) are not the same thing.
matheusmoreira 5mo ago
I'm a copyright abolitionist. I don't care at all that they're training AIs on copyrighted works. I care a lot that they're not getting relentlessly hunted down by the copyright industry for it like all the "pirates" that came before them. The copyright industry has actually ruined lives by litigating their "infringement" nonsense. It's only fair that they go after this guy as well. His constant violation of people's privacy is also horrendous and worthy of condemnation, but that's not directly related to the copyright infringement matter. It's a separate issue.
- bombcar 5mo ago
  If this was guaranteed to result in either Facebook being completely destroyed, or copyright abolished, I’d be ride-or-die for either outcome. But we all know it’ll be a slap on the wrist for Meta and nothing will change.
- thrance 5mo ago
  Yes, wanting the law to be applied fairly isn't incompatible with also seeking to change it.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
  "X shouldn't be illegal at all" and "I want this person or company I hate to be ruined for having done X" aren't mutually reasonable positions. Even less so when the person or company you hate has committed real crimes. Grow up.
  - matheusmoreira 5mo ago
    They are perfectly reasonable positions. "X shouldn't be illegal" implies that it is, in fact, currently illegal. Therefore Facebook and its executives and especially its CEO should absolutely suffer the full consequences of violating those laws, just like all of those people the copyright industry ruthlessly prosecuted. Anything less than this means it's rules for thee and not for me. Laws cease to have meaning when people realize and internalize the idea that they are just tools of the elite to keep the poors in line instead of proper instruments of justice that apply to everyone equally. That's an extremely dangerous thing for the public to realize and internalize, for obvious reasons.

bix6 5mo ago

What are his real crimes?

stubish 5mo ago

Lets define more things society doesn't want to happen as not-crimes so we can do more of them.

qingcharles 5mo ago

Why not both?

ethbr1 5mo ago

You get Al Capone on the charge you can make stick.

timcobb 5mo ago
Right but Al Capone did jail time, here Zuck gets to break and enter into people's homes, take their stuff, then haggle for it after-the-fact, all the while keeping the civilization-domination apparatus that he built using the stuff he stole? That is super not fair. Ordinary people could certainly not get away with that.
- ethbr1 5mo ago
  The US justice system doesn't start from fair. It starts from what you can prove to the letter of the law. And when you're targeting someone / something with unlimited lawyers, you'd better have ironclad evidence that exactly that happened in exactly the way the claim is written.
  - timcobb 5mo ago
    Okay, sure, but I'm talking about being satisfied. I understand reality and that I may not get the satisfaction I would like. And specifically the example of Al Capone who was, yeah, got for tax evasion, but at least was treated ultimately like the criminal he was.
    - ethbr1 5mo ago
      I mean, he was sentenced to 11 years and served 7 1/2. But untreated (at the time, no penicillin) syphilis turned him into a mental pre-teen after his release, so I guess the universe serves some justice where the laws of the land do not.

hsuduebc2 5mo ago

I'm kinda being upset because on top of his ridiculously amoral and sometimes illegal behavior there are people which lives were ruined because they shared few mp3 files. Now this person once again — have absolutely no responsibility for his actions even for something so idiotic like copyright infringement when others were severely punished.

j-bos 5mo ago

It's the increase in emotionality, principles loosely held, it allows a particular goal they get tossed, Tbc this extends far beyond the current topic and commenters.

archagon 5mo ago

Because the rich can do it and we can’t.

protocolture 5mo ago
I do it literally all the time.
- cestith 5mo ago
  You pirate other people’s works for profit all the time?
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
    Since when has Meta profited off of this shit? I don't know why their stock price hasn't cratered yet, but it's not because they're raking in the big cash training LLMs on 40 yr old cookbooks.
    - cestith 5mo ago
      The Metaverse wasn’t a great success either, but do you think the motive wasn’t profit? Do you think Meta is a public benefit corporation?
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
        We could have a conversation about that. Or rather, I could have a conversation about it with someone intelligent, who can actually appreciate nuance and detail. You've got some sort of mental caricature of mustache-twirling billionaires, where everything is "profit". It's pretty clear that Meta wasn't about profit, given that no amount of "sunk cost" could explain what happened. That had more to do with self-aggrandizement and his belief that he was some sort of digital messiah that would get to usher humanity into another world.
        5mo ago

verisimi 5mo ago

Principles and law (that determines 'crime', a legal word) are not the same thing.

matheusmoreira 5mo ago

I'm a copyright abolitionist. I don't care at all that they're training AIs on copyrighted works. I care a lot that they're not getting relentlessly hunted down by the copyright industry for it like all the "pirates" that came before them. The copyright industry has actually ruined lives by litigating their "infringement" nonsense. It's only fair that they go after this guy as well. His constant violation of people's privacy is also horrendous and worthy of condemnation, but that's not directly related to the copyright infringement matter. It's a separate issue.

bombcar 5mo ago
If this was guaranteed to result in either Facebook being completely destroyed, or copyright abolished, I’d be ride-or-die for either outcome. But we all know it’ll be a slap on the wrist for Meta and nothing will change.
thrance 5mo ago
Yes, wanting the law to be applied fairly isn't incompatible with also seeking to change it.
NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
"X shouldn't be illegal at all" and "I want this person or company I hate to be ruined for having done X" aren't mutually reasonable positions. Even less so when the person or company you hate has committed real crimes. Grow up.
- matheusmoreira 5mo ago
  They are perfectly reasonable positions. "X shouldn't be illegal" implies that it is, in fact, currently illegal. Therefore Facebook and its executives and especially its CEO should absolutely suffer the full consequences of violating those laws, just like all of those people the copyright industry ruthlessly prosecuted. Anything less than this means it's rules for thee and not for me. Laws cease to have meaning when people realize and internalize the idea that they are just tools of the elite to keep the poors in line instead of proper instruments of justice that apply to everyone equally. That's an extremely dangerous thing for the public to realize and internalize, for obvious reasons.