Some of us are old enough to remember when the RIAA sued children for downloading Metallica albums on filesharing networks. They sued for $100,000 per song, an absurd amount when you consider that even stealing a physical album would amount only to around $1 per song. What was bizarre was that courts took the figure seriously, even if they typically settled cases for around $3,000, still around 30x actual damages. The legal maximum was $150,000 per infringement: when a staffer leaked an early cut of the Wolverine movie, the studio could only sue for that much.
Remember that Metallica band members played an active driving role in those lawsuits against their own underage fans. It wasn't just the RIAA / record company organizations behaving cruelly, it was Metallica themselves. Fuck Metallica.
Way to leave out context!<p>By no means were they suing for downloading alone. They were suing for sharing while downloading, and seeding after, and as "early seeders" they helped thousands obtain copies.<p>Right or wrong, it was absolutely not about just downloading. It wasn't about taking one copy.<p>In their eyes, it was about copyng then handing out tens of thousands of copies for free.<p>Again, not saying it was right. However, please don't provide an abridged account, slanted to create a conclusion in the reader.
So, does this mean that people can simply argue in court now (if they were to be prosecuted for downloading media via bittorrent) that it is fair use if they used it to train a local model on their machine?
Children can commit crimes too.<p>It's funny, because now in the age of AI, many of the people that support piracy are now trying to stop AI companies from doing the same thing.
'Same thing', hah. This was edited out, but I'm quoting it anyway:<p>> <i>I should trot out all of the justifications here.</i><p>I'll start: personal use instead of profit. Certainly a difference, not convinced justification is required or even advisable.
A child stole a candy bar from my shop, time to bankrupt his whole working class family!<p>^ sociopathic legalists really do think this way.
Oh stop being disingenuous.
[dead]
> Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.<p>What an argument to make in court. It can be proved false in minutes by the plaintiffs.
I can't believe that no one has ever tried that one before... So do we now roll back all of the previous copyright cases where downloading music with bittorrent has been prosecuted?
> So do we now roll back all of the previous copyright cases where downloading music with bittorrent has been prosecuted<p>No, because those cases were pirating-while-poor. This is pirating-while-trillion-dollar-corporation, which falls under a completely different section of the law.
At this stage, you are going to far in claiming that. So far, all that happened is that Meta's lawyers <i>claimed</i> it was fair use. They are paid to try every argument they can think of that might work. Just because they make the argument doesn't mean the court will find it has any merit.
While you are correct that a decision on this specific case is still pending, your parent comment does have a point that breaking the law while rich and while poor have very different outcomes. Also, no way they’re going to roll back all previous cases. So the joke works now, no need to wait.
From my understanding, Meta's use of the pirated book was accepted as fair use and the plaintiffs admitted to no harm. In the case of pirated music and films, neither of those points are made. Copyright holders assume people who pirate would have bought the content, usually even assuming that one download is one lost sale. And I am not aware of a single case where watching or listening to pirated content was accepted as fair use.<p>It is interesting to follow how this plays out for Meta and how that will impact future cases.
One of the underlying issues is that punitive damages seem to be the norm in US courts.<p>In the UK you can only claim for the actual damages incurred, which at most will be the profit you would've made on the sale of that book. Which makes most claims for private infringement uneconomical for corporations.
We consumers just need BiTorrent clients that come with LLM training code incorporated, as that transforms the downloads into fair use (according to the very expensive Meta legal team).
When I pull the trigger and the bullet kills an another person, it is just how technology works. Why would I be responsible if I choose to use it or not?
This. You can set upload speed to zero, and download entire dataset without uploading anything. Slower but doable.
I agree, that people used to be called "leechers". Somewhat related xkcd <a href="https://xkcd.com/553/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/553/</a>
The world has become so strange. In my pirate youth, I would have never imagined the big companies to argue in courts like this, basically pro piracy. And the activists are now against it, because the big guys are doing it.
> And the activists are now against it, because the big guys are doing it.<p>The activists are against it because the big guys are exploiting us small guys, again. Nobody would give a shit if Meta was just torrenting Nintendo's IP and OpenAI was torrenting Netflix IP, except the lawyers working for these companies.
Nothing has changed: the money flows in the same direction as before, that's the constant. The courts are just a diode in a rectifier.
Big companies are stealing to enrich themselves, while small time pirates were pirating for their own entertainment. Some of the latter went to jail. While the former rake in the dough.
Activists are against AI training, not bittorrent
It's not like there has been some change in principle and some sort of knife to sharpen. "2005 personal pirate" was about making art accessible. "2025 corpo pirate" is about killing art.
The activists seem to be so blinded by disdain they can't even consider the value of the precedent if it goes theough.
If Meta wins this, does it mean that pirating becomes legal again?
Just need to get around to understand that on many subjects big companies are not uniform block... They all have their own goals and ways of profit. Other than exploiting the consumers and state.
I have no issue with anyone pirating. In my country — and soon in Italy as well — all storage media sales include a small levy (Artisjus) intended to compensate copyright holders for losses from piracy. One could argue it's unfair if you're not actually using the media for copying, but having been forced to pay it regardless, I have no moral qualms about pirating content I don't feel like paying for.<p>By the same token, AI companies are in no position to complain when their models are scraped and distilled.
How does that money get distributed? If I create a film, how they decide if I’m worthy enough to receive some of that money?
Why is it fair that you get to be subsidized by everyone who does pay? Imagine a world where everyone had the same attitude as you and did not pay for any media. Pirates get to pirate only because most people don’t. So why are you so special?
The problem is that laws don't apply to these big companies but to the small guys. It isn't as if piracy has suddenly become legal for everybody.<p>Oh no, its just legal for the big companies. The laws are different for everybody and that's what activists are worried about :)
I haven't changed. I was pro 20 years ago and I am pro now.
At some point, the contradiction of "law as something impartial" and "law bends to the whims of power" will need to be resolved.
Bad news, it's already been resolved.
Wholly agreed.<p>The way Disney &co coopted law to pack their coffers is a travesty: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act</a>
I remember in the 90s and 2000s, the FBI would go after homeless people selling bootleg VHS and DVDs on the street lol
ICE played an important role in those cases with long supply chains. Seems quaint now, but I think we should acknowledge any criminal who does not participate in a child abuse ring. Those counterfeit DVDs were not illegal content, just illegal storefronts.
If today’s ICE or FBI uncovered such a ring, who would they call first?
Since the creation of the USA the only real crime a person could do was being poor.
Meanwhile some kid downloads a song and gets lynched for it
Oh, how the tables have turned...
We're reaching levels of "move fast and break things" previously only thought possible under laboratory conditions.<p>Seriously? They couldn't be bothered setting upload speed to 0?
A related case:<p>"Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B US to settle author class action over AI training"<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/anthropic-ai-copyright-settlement-1.7626707" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/anthropic-ai-copyright-sett...</a>
Literally admitting to theft & whining about the modus which got them caught lol
Copyrights and patents are tools of communists and need to be banned and overturned in the age of AI.
Would save countless lives and improve billions more.
Gut reaction: Judge needs to upload Meta's lawyers to jail cells, explaining "that's simply how the technology works".
[flagged]