3 ms·

From TFA: "Strike 3 suggests the downloads are consistent with work to make the headset compatible with adult films" > The company logged all BitTorrent activi

From TFA: "Strike 3 suggests the downloads are consistent with work to make the headset compatible with adult films" > The company logged all BitTorrent activity detected from the executive’s connection, which was nearly 20,000 files. > This includes VR adult titles made for Meta’s Quest headset. Strike 3 suggests the downloads are consistent with work to make the headset compatible with adult films. > As recently as August 25, Strike 3 says it recorded more than 150 daily downloads, from multi-language “Mega Packs” of TV shows, movies, software and books to what it describes as AI-generated pornography and VR adult films. That included nearly a dozen of its own titles.

chorizo 1mo ago
Why was torrenting needed anyway? Meta could’ve easily reached out to adult media providers to work on VR headset compatibility under an NDA. Or hired a third party contractor to do it.
- LoganDark 1mo ago
  Leaks would be a very, very big problem given how aggressively they want to promote child safety and restrictions.
  - chorizo 1mo ago
    Fair. Hence it makes sense to engage a third party vendor to handle this project. Both the media provider and Mets stands to gain here
    - LoganDark 1mo ago
      This would require an Apple level of secrecy, I think.
- darth_avocado 1mo ago
  It’s much more expensive. You as a consumer can buy a movie for $5 with a DVD on sale. But tos generally don’t include commercial activities. If you reach out to the film studio to get their permission, they can charge you anywhere from $10K to $1M+ for same thing. And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content but they generally wouldn’t want to set a precedent where they paid everyone.
  - chorizo 1mo ago
    Meta wants to make their service compatible with meta vr headsets. They don’t require ongoing access to the content. The media vendor would also benefit from this, so an agreement is in the interest of both parties.
  - fn-mote 1mo ago
    > And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content Are you? I don’t understand why you think this. It seems like the only payments in this area are settlements after the fact. Counterexamples welcome.
  - triceratops 1mo ago
    > But tos generally don’t include commercial activities I can't think of any ToS that prohibit a device manufacturer from testing whether the content plays on their device. That's literally why anyone buys content - to play it on their device. How would they enforce those anyway? And how would being sued for that be worse than being sued for torrenting?
- salawat 1mo ago
  Because that would have been the right way to do it, and if they do it right even once, they can't say "We DiDn'T KnOw aNy BeTtEr" or whatever excuse they fall back to.

chorizo 1mo ago

Why was torrenting needed anyway? Meta could’ve easily reached out to adult media providers to work on VR headset compatibility under an NDA. Or hired a third party contractor to do it.

LoganDark 1mo ago
Leaks would be a very, very big problem given how aggressively they want to promote child safety and restrictions.
- chorizo 1mo ago
  Fair. Hence it makes sense to engage a third party vendor to handle this project. Both the media provider and Mets stands to gain here
  - LoganDark 1mo ago
    This would require an Apple level of secrecy, I think.
darth_avocado 1mo ago
It’s much more expensive. You as a consumer can buy a movie for $5 with a DVD on sale. But tos generally don’t include commercial activities. If you reach out to the film studio to get their permission, they can charge you anywhere from $10K to $1M+ for same thing. And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content but they generally wouldn’t want to set a precedent where they paid everyone.
- chorizo 1mo ago
  Meta wants to make their service compatible with meta vr headsets. They don’t require ongoing access to the content. The media vendor would also benefit from this, so an agreement is in the interest of both parties.
- fn-mote 1mo ago
  > And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content Are you? I don’t understand why you think this. It seems like the only payments in this area are settlements after the fact. Counterexamples welcome.
- triceratops 1mo ago
  > But tos generally don’t include commercial activities I can't think of any ToS that prohibit a device manufacturer from testing whether the content plays on their device. That's literally why anyone buys content - to play it on their device. How would they enforce those anyway? And how would being sued for that be worse than being sued for torrenting?
salawat 1mo ago
Because that would have been the right way to do it, and if they do it right even once, they can't say "We DiDn'T KnOw aNy BeTtEr" or whatever excuse they fall back to.