this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
167 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

56352 readers
969 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:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Meta did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment and has maintained throughout the litigation that AI training on LibGen was "fair use."

When I upload a single half century old photo to Wikipedia, I have to fill out a relatively complicated form proving that it meets "fair use" standards. Internet Archive got legally fucked for allowing people to read their book scans without restriction for a while. And now these absolute cunts have the gall to defer to "fair use"! I really wonder if the same authors and publishing houses who sued IA will do anything about this.

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 4 points 43 minutes ago

See, Meta is rich and US laws don't seem to apply to American oligarchs.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 hours ago

And they probably never reseeded it afterwards either, the inconsiderate prats

[–] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 29 points 5 hours ago

This doesn’t mean that Meta denies using shadow libraries, its argument is that using such data to train its LLM models constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law.

Oh wow, I'm very much looking forward to this argument... "We believe pirating the copyrighted commercial works of others en masse to develop our own commercial product constitutes fair use... China bad!"

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

That's a lot of Far Side books.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 35 points 6 hours ago

Of course they didn't seed. Fucking leeches.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 72 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Remember when Aaron Swartz tried to do something similar and received multiple life sentences

[–] guaraguaito@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

And was intimidated so bad by the legal system he killed himself.

[–] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 97 points 9 hours ago
[–] AnEilifintChorcra@sopuli.xyz 48 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

“Plaintiffs do not plead a single instance in which any part of any book was, in fact, downloaded by a third party from Meta via torrent, much less that Plaintiffs’ books were somehow distributed by Meta,” the company writes.

Another reason to hate Meta, now they're scummy leechers even though they could afford the bandwidth to seed back

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 22 points 8 hours ago

Capitalists aren't in the business of sharing.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 5 hours ago

Downloading and seeding are very legally different.

[–] albert180@discuss.tchncs.de 52 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

If they don't respect copyright I don't respect it either

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

We just need to wait until copyright regulations get killed... Right?

[–] Bezier@suppo.fi 8 points 8 hours ago

Right?

Right...?

Surely they would...

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Copyright lobby begs to differ. 😂

[–] heavydust@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

My Mullvad account begs to differ. And it makes my banker happy!

[–] azron@lemmy.ml 32 points 9 hours ago

And they should pay for every book they stole :)

[–] zaknenou@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 hours ago