Well good news if they are successful in their arguments it can set precedent to make piracy legal.
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
511 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
63082 readers
2410 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
According to the law (the thing that determines if something is or isn’t illegal) it’s illegal. Zuck is a criminal.
Facebook got FBI_README.txt at the root of their DC++ share.
So where's the MAFIAA? Here you go guys, literal industrial scale piracy.
Or are you afraid to go after someone that isn't a teenager in their parent's back room?
Fighting Meta will cost easy more money than fighting a teenager.
I am aware. I was simply demonstrating they were never about money, simply bullying people who couldn't fight back.
Especially since in the height of my pirating years during teenagerdom, no amount of cajoling or coercion could get me to pay for whatever it was because I didn't have any money. Which not at all coincidentally was why I was pirating it in the first place.
These dweebs always operate from the frankly invalid preconception that if the pirate had not pirated the media they would have paid for it and therefore they're "owed" a sale, but that's not how it works. I imagine that if the vast majority of people were unable to pirate their thing, they simply would not watch/listen/read/play/consume the thing at all.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I mean isn't that at least some extent technically true to a level.
I mean if we weren't talking a shitty corporation to begin with. If this were say, a 20 year old mcdonnalds worker pirating game of thrones.
IMO the bigger concept is still rather than if they got it... defining whether using that data after the fact is legal. I mean hypothetically speaking lets just say they bought 1 copy of each of the millions of books, or bought used copies, or say had a machine that could scan every book in a library. IMO the issue shouldn't be whether or not anyone managed to download the books in their pure form afterwards. The focus should be the AI trained on their books, is going to be distributing portions of their book to millions of people, and any potential profits of such will be going to meta and uncredited to the original authors. The idea that meta's involvement in torrenting may have let little timmy get a copy of his text book 15 seconds faster... shouldn't be the driving force here.
I mean isn't that at least some extent technically true to a level.
It's completely true. That's why a lot of people don't seed. And why your ISP won't bother you if you don't.
So, piracy is legal if you don't distribute? What the fuck is Zuck smoking?
And the copyright owners have no problem with them profiting from derived works that were made using pirated content?
you can download it, but you can't use it. so restrictive :(
Well, that's how it tends to be in most places.
You don't get caught for downloading; you get caught for uploading.
Using a similar logic to distribution via DVDs. Only the seller gets into trouble. The buyer does not.
Another point, opening a web page means downloading it, so if someone wanted to frame someone for downloading something, it would be very easy to make such a trap. This, accompanied with CSAM and network monitoring could be used to easily get any person using the internet, in jail, just for opening the wrong link. So, the laws require much more information regarding intent and such.
Eh. Makes sense from the perspective of protecting profits, I guess, because the actual thing which bothers them is the volume of lost potential customers....
load more comments
(1 replies)
The buyers/downloaders don't get caught is just because there are too many of them and going after the distributor is an easy target.
Not the case, necessarily.
In Portugal, for example, it's legal to download pirated content. It's not a matter of not pursuing it because it's hard or being difficult to catch or distributors are an easier target, it's just that, legally, you're not doing anything wrong.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is it not also because it was easier to feign ignorance for the time the laws were passed?
And that nobody thought of Tor, while at the same time, leechers who don't seed are actually being worse for the Torrent?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)