4 ms·

Have there been any cases since the Meta ruling with the books they torrented? If I understood it right they argued and won that they didn’t seed any of the tor

Have there been any cases since the Meta ruling with the books they torrented? If I understood it right they argued and won that they didn’t seed any of the torrents so is fair use and the judge agreed. That case made it seem like as long as you don’t seed/distribute the copyrighted material then it is legal

Manuel_D 3mo ago
It's quite clearly explained on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing > In the case of file sharing networks, companies claim that peer-to-peer file sharing enables the violation of their copyrights. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reasoning is that if a copyrighted work is on a file sharing network, whoever uploaded or downloaded the file is liable for violating the copyright because they are reproducing the work without the authorization of the copyright holder or the law. Both uploading and downloading is a violation. All the major cases are against distributors, because those are the big fish. But rights holders have gone after individuals: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/litigation-campaign-quietly-targets-tens-63769/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/lit...
- iAMkenough 3mo ago
  It’s too bad the judge told rights holders to forget about it when Meta violates copyright.
- rolph 3mo ago
  streaming is downloading, otherwise it wouldnt be visible on your hardware. if you pay for a stream and the distributor downloads it to your buffer, the only thing preventing it from persisting is wrapping the data to contain it in a file structure. if we really want to split hairs, everytime the data is accessed a streams bits are copied into registers, but those bits have no identity beyond 1 or 0 if you dont distribute this to others or brag on a forum about all your streams, no one will even know.
  - Manuel_D 3mo ago
    The argument is that it doesn't create another copy, so it's more analogous to receiving a broadcast. Like, if a pirate radio station plays copyrighted music, then the mere act of receiving those signals isn't a copyright violation. But recording that broadcast would be.
    - Telaneo 3mo ago
      > But recording that broadcast would be. Is this seriously true in the US? I doubt this is the case in any European jurisdiction. Recording radio and TV is legal in any other case (the relevant companies didn't want that to be the case either, but we hadn't yet fallen far enough down the hole yet for that possibility to disappear). To make another comparison: You record House on your Tivo = Legal (you now have a file you can play anywhere (barring DRM, but libre DVRs exist), you've copied it) You 'record' House on Netflix (either literally with OBS or just capturing the video stream via some other means) = Illegal The only difference is the source. The actual video stream could be functionally identical. There's the fact that actual TV and radio isn't on-demand, but that to me is just an implementation detail, and not an inherent reason to treat them differently (then again, I'm not deep into the mindset of defending copyright).
      - rolph 3mo ago
        the thing is its not like a radio or TV broadcast. some countries consider open broadcast to be public domain so once its broadcast its public, you just cant sell it like its yours. when a server downloads data to you, the server is creating a copy on your hardware right out of the gate. a stream is a download. a central server, is pushing bits into your hardware, and making a copy on your hardware. restricting any copying at all means your hardware cant use what you were legally given, because by a split hair definition, the bits are being copied when they move from memory address to register address vice versa. appending header and footer to a data structure is not copying the data. the real problem unilaterally, is when you are not a legal distributor, and you provide a copy to someone else. [dont do that]
secretsatan 3mo ago
I believe this is the current situation in switzerland, plus, the swiss have a tv license you have to pay if you have anything that could show media digitally so i feel doubly justified pirating things.

Manuel_D 3mo ago

It's quite clearly explained on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing > In the case of file sharing networks, companies claim that peer-to-peer file sharing enables the violation of their copyrights. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reasoning is that if a copyrighted work is on a file sharing network, whoever uploaded or downloaded the file is liable for violating the copyright because they are reproducing the work without the authorization of the copyright holder or the law. Both uploading and downloading is a violation. All the major cases are against distributors, because those are the big fish. But rights holders have gone after individuals: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/litigation-campaign-quietly-targets-tens-63769/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/lit...

iAMkenough 3mo ago
It’s too bad the judge told rights holders to forget about it when Meta violates copyright.
rolph 3mo ago
streaming is downloading, otherwise it wouldnt be visible on your hardware. if you pay for a stream and the distributor downloads it to your buffer, the only thing preventing it from persisting is wrapping the data to contain it in a file structure. if we really want to split hairs, everytime the data is accessed a streams bits are copied into registers, but those bits have no identity beyond 1 or 0 if you dont distribute this to others or brag on a forum about all your streams, no one will even know.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  The argument is that it doesn't create another copy, so it's more analogous to receiving a broadcast. Like, if a pirate radio station plays copyrighted music, then the mere act of receiving those signals isn't a copyright violation. But recording that broadcast would be.
  - Telaneo 3mo ago
    > But recording that broadcast would be. Is this seriously true in the US? I doubt this is the case in any European jurisdiction. Recording radio and TV is legal in any other case (the relevant companies didn't want that to be the case either, but we hadn't yet fallen far enough down the hole yet for that possibility to disappear). To make another comparison: You record House on your Tivo = Legal (you now have a file you can play anywhere (barring DRM, but libre DVRs exist), you've copied it) You 'record' House on Netflix (either literally with OBS or just capturing the video stream via some other means) = Illegal The only difference is the source. The actual video stream could be functionally identical. There's the fact that actual TV and radio isn't on-demand, but that to me is just an implementation detail, and not an inherent reason to treat them differently (then again, I'm not deep into the mindset of defending copyright).
    - rolph 3mo ago
      the thing is its not like a radio or TV broadcast. some countries consider open broadcast to be public domain so once its broadcast its public, you just cant sell it like its yours. when a server downloads data to you, the server is creating a copy on your hardware right out of the gate. a stream is a download. a central server, is pushing bits into your hardware, and making a copy on your hardware. restricting any copying at all means your hardware cant use what you were legally given, because by a split hair definition, the bits are being copied when they move from memory address to register address vice versa. appending header and footer to a data structure is not copying the data. the real problem unilaterally, is when you are not a legal distributor, and you provide a copy to someone else. [dont do that]

secretsatan 3mo ago

I believe this is the current situation in switzerland, plus, the swiss have a tv license you have to pay if you have anything that could show media digitally so i feel doubly justified pirating things.