this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
337 points (99.7% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

59541 readers
429 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In one of the AI lawsuits faced by Meta, the company stands accused of distributing pirated books. The authors who filed the class-action lawsuit allege that Meta shared books from the shadow library LibGen with third parties via BitTorrent. Meta, however, says that it took precautions to prevent 'seeding' content. In addition, the company clarifies that there is nothing 'independently illegal' about torrenting.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChiefGyk3D@infosec.pub 226 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Somehow that makes it even worse in my opinion

[–] zaknenou@lemmy.dbzer0.com 111 points 1 month ago (1 children)

dirty hit and run behavior, motherf****ers

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 158 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I was actually hoping to see that as a defense. The principal thing that copy enforcement corps always cite is 'we downloaded a copy from their IP, thus they made a copy and distributed the work'.

If this works as a defense here then in effect they make direct download portals legal for the users at least.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 month ago

You’re forgetting that they’re a rich corporation, and you’re not. They’ll get away with the defense, but even if it set a precedent, copyright groups can still sue you until you’re broke to make an example of you, even if you didn’t legally do anything “wrong”.

As long as you can sue someone for any reason without repercussions, then it’s always going to be the people with more money who come out on top. Always. Wining a lawsuit doesn’t mean you’re not still financially destroyed and driven into poverty for the rest of your life.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 11 points 1 month ago

this is actually the way it works in australia: downloading content is not illegal; sharing content is illegal

thus as a consumer, usenet is fine

obligatory ianal

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 151 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So they're inconsiderate assholes and leeches.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Now now, they're not just inconsiderate assholes and leeches.

They're inconsiderate nazi oligarch assholes and leeches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 76 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Where now are the copyright trolls that sued regular students for millions of dollars for downloading 30 songs?

Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful.

Let me see:

  • At least 100 million of books pirated
  • infringements were willful

So, a 15k billion dollars fine seem appropriate to give to Meta AND criminal sentences to all the c suite.

Or: apply the same rules to regular people and allow unlimited copyright violations without consequences

[–] ZeroGravitas@lemm.ee 61 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes your honor I lit up but didn't inhale.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

More like "Yes your honor I lit up and inhaled, just got a huge ass lungful, but I didn't pass"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 60 points 1 month ago

thats like the only thing that would've made this better bro

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 51 points 1 month ago

Death penalty for leechers.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 48 points 1 month ago

Bastard leachers.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 month ago (56 children)

ah so they only downloaded them illigally, and then used them illegally, but didn't share them illegally. got it

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

~~Sharing is caring~~

Sharing is crime(͡•_ ͡• )

load more comments (55 replies)
[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the company clarifies that there is nothing 'independently illegal' about torrenting.

Ah yes, I'm sure this strawman defense will hold up well for them in court.

[–] diemartin@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It will probably work. Because, you know, money.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it does work, does that then mean they've effectively declared torrenting to be legal? Or at least as long as you claim not to have seeded?

[–] diemartin@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

You hope! Laws will still apply to us peasants

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 28 points 1 month ago

We didn't inhale, so it's not illegal for us. ~ZuckFuck

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is there a way to change the torrent client's name\version so you appear in a list of seeds as Mark Zuckerberg?

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Certainly, but it's not like that'll get him in trouble or anything

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

It'd certainly encourage me to up my torrenting game so this shit appears 24\7 at rather weird uploads around the globe.

[–] 01011@monero.town 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Facebook was leeching? No way...

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 18 points 1 month ago

not really what we upset about but okay

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago

I doubt anything legal would come from this, but it does progress the conversation about piracy:

“You wouldn’t download a car would you? Cause zuck would without sharing”

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Haha, what a bunch of scumbags. They can"t even seed back when pirating.

We really need to round up all of Meta's executive directors, seize all their assets (every last cent) and require them to do mandatory two decade live-in community service as junior custodians (the lowest level custodians in the whole institution) at hospice centres or infectious disease hospitals. De-mining work and resource extraction junior support would also be good options for community service work.

Not for this of course, more like knowingly enabling genocide in Myanmar and so on.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Overthrow democratic nations 👍 Theoretically the owning class loosing out on a few bucks 😱

Thanks Meta.

[–] dicksteele@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know it’s their legal defense and all, but it’s not like any of us thought they would seed in the first place. Their business is only about taking for profit, not sharing or giving anything back.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago

I don't think anyone expected them to seed on purpose but its not inconceivable that they'd accidentally let some seeding through, or not consider it in the first place.

load more comments
view more: next ›