Good.
For once, hit 'em with a fine for each and every instance of infringement.
Not one of those bullshit "all in one" fines either.
Make it count or it's meaningless.
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
480 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67151 readers
3668 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- 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
@[email protected] being threaten with jail time and fines won't be enough, but the potential punishment needs to be so severe and harasment so relentless they'd consider hanging themselves instead. Aaron Swartz will not be forgotten.
Anna Archive should make a deal w DOJ, provide evidence about Meta, free the two zlib admin.
The goverment will kill Anna's archive the moment laws stemming from this lawsuits are passed. It guarantees any new open source initiatives don't surface once they are all shut down. The big players will be okay though since they can stomach the fines and pay for the data.
Legit fuck meta I hope somebody Mario parites with zuck
Don't you worry, I'm sure jd couch fucker vance will step in and threaten to pull the US out of NATO again if we don't allow US companies to rob us blind.
Fuck the USA
I wonder what their argument is. French copyright law governs France. People in the US have no obligation to follow it. Might as well fine people in the UK for driving on the wrong side of the road.
I was about to correct you before I realized that you must be trolling. In case you are not: Please take your statement and follow it to its natural conclusion. Think about the logical consequences of how things would work if your statement was correct.
What? Did you reply to the wrong post?
Do you really think that's how the world works?
If copyright wasn't international, tons of industries would have died from competition: software, books, movies, shows, etc...
The French pay to watch American movies and shows, read their books, etc. Why should american AI companies get french stuff for free?
Oh wow. That's not a small misunderstanding.
Law is basically territorial. French police can arrest people in France. If, say, Russian police tries to arrest someone in France, then it is, at best, a criminal kidnapping and, at worst, an act of war. Extradition hearings are a thing because a country decides on its own terms, by its own laws, whether to hand over people to another jurisdiction.
Sovereignty is a big deal for countries. If you think about it in terms of kidnapped or armed, uniformed foreigners running around, then you understand why.
If France were to send out fines to people in the UK for driving on the wrong side of the road, then the UK would refuse to collect them. France could collect fines for something people have done in the UK only if these people pass through France. Obviously, that would cause serious international tension.
In the same way, if France awards special privileges to its citizens that allow them to collect money from people around the world, other countries would not entertain such demands. What France can do, is make laws that force French residents to pay money to people around the world. That's how copyright law works.
There are international treaties on intellectual property. Signatory countries generally agree to have certain minimal standards in their laws. They also agree to treat all nationals equal. So, France couldn't make special privileges for its citizens. They also agree that their copyright laws only apply in their territories.
So, I don't see quite what a French court could be doing here, that would be compatible with international law.
Dude you're misunderstanding this.
The French punishers can sue Facebook in the US for violating their copyright. But since Facebook also operates in France, they can sue them there. It's that simple.
Copyright law is pretty powerful and generally global. If you write a book in France in French, I can't translate and sell it in the US.
So the punishers can sue in the US but they'd probably not win. Facebook operating in France means it is subject to french laws and can be sued there.
I guess my post was too long. Yes, France could enforce a judgment against Meta by leaning on the French division of Meta. The question is, on what legal basis this would happen.
They are suing because of something that happened in the US, right? What argument is there to apply French law?
That's not merely politically contentious. It is explicitly against internation law; treaties that France has signed.
Since Meta operates in France, it is being punished for something that happened in France. Legal representatives of the company as a whole are present in the EU. Divisions are not relevant to this discussion.
Is the argument that something that a multinational corporation does in one country, happens in all countries where the corporation is present? There's no way that would stand up in court.
Why would they then give a shit about complying with ePrivacy and GDPR?
They have to comply with these laws in Europe. They do not comply with them outside of Europe.
They are operating in Europe.
They follow French law in France and US law in the US. How else could it work?
They can’t choose to apply US labor law in France. Do you think they can be made to follow French labor law in Silicon Valley?
I bring you the example of the Territorial Scope of the GDPR since it is the one I am most acquainted with:
-
This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not. -
This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. -
This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.
Similar articles are there for the AI Act (which got JD Vance to talk shit about the EU on the 11th February) and the Product Liability Directive.
This is the reality we live in. Up to you to accept it or not.
GDPR is not copyright, despite all similarities. I assume that you accept that copyright does not work like that, since you are changing the subject.
Note that the GDPR does not claim to be applicable in third countries; ie outside the territory where EU law is enforced. It only seeks to regulate dealings of outside parties with people in the EU. Even that can't be practically enforced, usually. Once data leaves the EU, there isn't much EU governments can do about it, which is why the GDPR has serious rules about data transfers to third countries. (That's a problem for the fediverse.)
As I stated, I am more familiar with the articles of the GDPR, nothing more.
I expect a company like Meta to have a EU corporate entity and legal representation in the EU, in which case the charges can be applied to the EU entity and authorities may even seize assets within the Union.
Did they deploy their AI in Europe? The AI trained on stolen data? It's like saying that you pirated a Disney movie in Europe and are selling derivative work from that in the US
Did they deploy their AI in Europe?
That's a good question. I just checked with Meta's website. It says Meta AI is "not available" in my country, which is in the EU.
I think OPs comment was meant to be read as “I wonder what their argument is:” then everything following that is probably what the US/Meta lawyers would say.
It’s international law aye but in Trump’s America anything goes.
Yes, that's where the trouble starts. I think later treaties reinforce the principle. I'd really like to know how the rights owners argue to get around that.
That's not how international companies work. They ARE in France.
They follow French law in France and US law in the US. How else could it work?
They can't choose to apply US labor law in France. Do you think they can be made to follow French labor law in Silicon Valley?
Let's put it in simpler terms. Imagine it's a French made move and meta just ripped it and it's selling it back in the web.
As soon as that product, the riped french movie, is available in France for sale they are selling it through their French branch, which would be breaking French law on French soil, thus could be easily prosecuted.
If they do not comply they could be lawfully ban from operating on France.
Haven't you seen what happened with twitter in Brazil?
That's where it gets interesting. The EU can, of course, regulate imports. If there's a movie that is public domain in the US but not in France, then France/the EU could regulate the importation and sale of copies. I don't know how that is actually regulated. What it can't do is award damages for copies being made and used in the US.
There is a brief mention of the EU's AI Act. That is certainly the basis for the lawsuit, rather than copyright law.
That means, if this case proceeds, it will be basically decided by the CJEU and create precedents for the entire EU.
Fuck em up!
Excellent!