Somehow that makes it even worse in my opinion
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
336 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
59954 readers
93 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 |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
dirty hit and run behavior, motherf****ers
This.
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.
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.
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
So they're inconsiderate assholes and leeches.
Now now, they're not just inconsiderate assholes and leeches.
They're inconsiderate nazi oligarch assholes and leeches.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
Yes your honor I lit up but didn't inhale.
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)
thats like the only thing that would've made this better bro
Death penalty for leechers.
Bastard leachers.
ah so they only downloaded them illigally, and then used them illegally, but didn't share them illegally. got it
There is no legal prohibition against asking someone for a copy of a work, nor is there a prohibition against receiving a copy, even if that copy was illegally produced and/or illegally distributed.
They didn't download them illegally, nor did they "use" them illegally. If you want to say they did something illegal, you have to argue that they were somehow in collusion with the uploader, which would make them uploaders themselves.
Edit: Downvotes? In a piracy community?
It’s very illegal in Fance to download without paying, and I guess it’s the same in a lot of other countries.
Best I can tell, this lawsuit was filed in a US federal court in California. French law doesn't seem to be applicable.
French pirates should probably use a VPN endpoint in a more enlightened society.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Receiving a copy of a copyrighted work (from anywhere) and using it for commercial purposes when the license doesn't cover that usage (or simply doesn't exist) is, in fact, illegal. This is why Anthropic was sued last year.
load more comments
(5 replies)
downvotes are because you are saying provably factually incorrect things.
load more comments
(25 replies)
There is no legal prohibition against asking someone for a copy of a work
No one asked for a copy, they just took it.
nor is there a prohibition against receiving a copy, even if that copy was illegally produced and/or illegally distributed.
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.
If you want to say they did something illegal, you have to argue that they were somehow in collusion with the uploader
Making a copy of copyrighted content without permission is illegal.
Edit: Downvotes? In a piracy community?
Piracy community can't be interested in facts?
load more comments
(17 replies)
~~Sharing is caring~~
Sharing is crime(͡•_ ͡• )
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.
It will probably work. Because, you know, money.
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?
You hope! Laws will still apply to us peasants
Is there a way to change the torrent client's name\version so you appear in a list of seeds as Mark Zuckerberg?
Certainly, but it's not like that'll get him in trouble or anything
It'd certainly encourage me to up my torrenting game so this shit appears 24\7 at rather weird uploads around the globe.
We didn't inhale, so it's not illegal for us. ~ZuckFuck
not really what we upset about but okay
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”
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.
Overthrow democratic nations 👍 Theoretically the owning class loosing out on a few bucks 😱
Thanks Meta.
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.
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.
view more: next ›