- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
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.
No one asked for a copy, they just took it.
They didn’t “receive” a copy. No one dropped a hard drive off on their doorstep. They actively pursued the content and made a copy without permission for profit.
Making a copy of copyrighted content without permission is illegal.
Piracy community can’t be interested in facts?
When I click a link, I am sending a request to a server. I am asking that server to provide me with information. The server’s operator is responsible for determining if and how the server should respond to my request. I don’t control that server. I can’t force it to send me data. I can only ask. If it is configured to accede to my request, it will start sending data, which may or may not be the data I requested. If it doesn’t want to, it can tell me to pound sand. The operator of that server is responsible for the server’s actions. The operator of that server is the uploader.
If Meta actually “just took it”, we wouldn’t be having a discussion about copyright. We would be talking about “Unlawful access to a computer”.
They absolutely did.
Actively pursuing content is perfectly lawful.
You can’t copy something you do not possess. The entity who copied it was the uploader, not the downloader. That uploader created and distributed a copy by sending a bitstream to the receiver. Putting that bitstream on their hard drive is “receiving” not “creating a copy”.
A profit motive is only relevant if we are talking about a fair use exemption. They aren’t raising a fair use defense.
Which they did not do. The uploader may have violated the law, but the downloader has not.
You seem intent on repeatedly misrepresenting the situation so this conversation is clearly going nowhere.
One of us seems intent on repeatedly misrepresenting the situation. I am inclined to leave the determination of that point to the reader.
It seems the readers have spoken.