I absolutely love the fact that all these companies are laying the legal groundwork to destroy intellectual property rights altogether. If they win enough of these cases, then every pirate on the open seas sails under a flag of amnesty.
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
379 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
82468 readers
2863 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
So we can pirate books as well as long as we aren't able to reproduce them verbatim from memory as well?
Judge Vince Chhabria either accepts whatever bribes and offers he's probably getting offered and sides with Meta, or it will eventually go on to the Supreme Court where they most definitely will. That's the part of this that will work the most under an administration of no accountability.
Tell the judge you are training a neural network... it just happens to also be you.
So I can use pirated media to train my AI (Actual Intelligence), right?
As long as you’re rich enough to hire your own army of lawyers, probably.
That said, it seems like when you’re rich enough to hire your own army of lawyers you can pretty much do whatever you want.
Well, that doesn't sound civil or lawful at all and more like kindoms of the dark ages degree of "rules" where it doesn't apply to a choosen few.
If Meta and other bigcorps that support the US goverment get the special "avoid-judgment" card and you face punishment then there's no law, only bigotry.
That would encourage individuals and small groups to keep their activites a secret (go anonymous) and break the law whenever they can,
because the "king and his followers" don't follow their own "rules".
The US is not only getting dystopian, they're commiting primitive mistakes.
Should make all journal publications fair use.
load more comments
(1 replies)
-
Shorter and more reasonable copyright lengths would make this a moot point because then there would sufficient literature in the public domain to pull from.
-
These kind of charges are what put the Pirate Bay admins in prison and caused Aaron Swartz to kill himself because of a threat of lifetime in prison. The claim that they did this either with the goal of profit or actually successful profit and that this was a serious crime. Neither TPB or Swartz at that point in time had ever moved as much data as Meta has for these claims, nor did they ever have the profit or possibility of profit Meta aims to make from their AI offerings.
-
Now Meta is claiming they've profited so hard you can't possibly hold them accountable.
It will be the biggest "fuck you" in history to anyone ever hit with civil charges for piracy in the early 2000s, let alone the TPB admins and Swartz, if they let this go. Which means they probably will because in America, apparently if you crime hard enough and big enough they stop putting you in prison and start patting you on the back and calling it good business sense.
If heaven and hell are real I hope God and Satan give Swartz a sabbatical so he can go torture Zuck for a while, periodically.
in America, apparently if you crime hard enough and big enough they stop putting you in prison and start patting you on the back and calling it good business sense.
If you owe the bank $100 you have a problem. If you owe the bank $100,000,000, the bank has a problem.
in America, apparently if you crime hard enough and big enough they stop putting you in prison and start patting you on the back and calling it good business sense.
There's a story about Alexander the great capturing a pirate and scolding him for raiding villages along the coast line. Alexander asked if the pirate feels ashamed and wants to beg for forgiveness. However, the pirate had something else to say. He said that Alexander was doing the same thing, but infinitely worse. The only difference was that Alexander called himself king and plundered entire lands while the pirate only raided small villages. The pirate reminded Alexander of the many lives he had destroyed in his conquest. So the pirate's only crime was not to be the biggest baddie in the hood, so to speak.
Alexander replied by stating that the title of king forces his hand and that he couldn't just stop what he was doing. The pirate on the other hand was just an individual who could easily change course. And so Alexander set the pirate free, stating that he himself will start changing his own ways right there and then if the pirate makes a fresh start first.
I don't know if there is any truth to this but it's a fable often used to explain how legitimacy changes the perception people have of wrong doing and heroism on a fundamental level. Alexander's reply sounds like an excuse and I think that's on purpose. The pirate outwitted him in the end by stating a basic truth.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
Looking forward to Jellyfin getting a LLM to train locally on movie preferences so everyone’s library is fair use. Wait, is this why LLMs are being shoehorned into everything? 🤔
By this logic i should be able to copy paste Moby Dick and change all instances of the name to Mopy Dick and now it's output no longer matches the imput. I'm about to be the next Stefani King.
The woman in white fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed. The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts.
Moby Dick
You could also try understanding the law
§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
with particular attention to factors 1 (especially transformation) & 4.
If that's not for you, though, then you should definitely try that with a copyright work (Disney?) & report back on how that went.
Meta have paid the copyright fee but uploaded material from Ann's Archive because it wasn't financially feasible to scan in each book individually.
Fair use is irrelevant.
Meta have paid the copyright fee
Lol, no. "Copyright fees" are what you pay your government in order to register your copyright or keep your copyright registration active.
Or to put it another way, copyright fees have fuck all to do with fair use.
You're trying make it sound as though Meta obtained consent and paid authors for their own work when in fact, Meta obtained consent from no one, and paid nothing at all to anyone, in exchange for the use of their works.
Even a light skim of the attached article would have told you that much. What do you think a copyright suit is about?
"Meta have paid the copyright fee," lol. That's some r/ConfidentlyIncorrect shit right there. Why did you even bother?
Right. Maybe you should email this to facebook...
Don't need to: their lawyers understood the law & lawyered successfully so far.
Ah, so troll it is.
Are you referring to yourself by claiming your ignorance somehow matches legal expertise? Cool ad hominem, by the way: fallacies, blame-shifting when you run out of evidence (you had none), & self-indulgent vanity are the hallmarks of trolls. Way to out yourself, buddy. 😄
Classic "the end justifies the means" (bad) defense. If ISPs can send letter for torrenting, and Facebook torrented a lot, Facebook deserves a fair punishment.
lol it would be hilarious if they could order Facebook disconnected from the Internet like a pleb hit with a copyright complaint
Not deserves, needs.
truck full of letters backs up to Meta's headquarters
"there, that's more appropriate."
did they have a library card? if so, then fuck off.
Yup, that's what I'm doing with all those audiobooks I torrented. Helping the US maintain the lead in AI 😂
Unironically may become a legitimate defense. Although in that case, indiscriminately bombing gas stations in your town and extorting their owners should also be allowed but...
There are no rules. Everything is made up to their convenience.
Is it fair use if I do it?
How rich are you?
I'm quite poor. I'm thankful every day that my mom and dad still let me live with them.
I wouldn’t recommend it then 😞
just claim that you are training an AI for a new startup you are working on, and will soon be looking for VC to fund the project further. be sure to use terms like "revolutionary" and "democratize" liberally.
sure. thanks meta, anna's archive will help me with my reading list, thanks.
anna's archive
I wish. As someone astutely put it in another conversation, now that the tech companies have pilfered Anna's Archive, the big publishers are going to try to get it shut down.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›