Re:Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyri...
by SketchySeaBeast on Friday February 07, 2025 @08:41AM
(#42972388)
I really don't think that Meta did this because the alternative would have been too onerous; they are a huge org, they could work through whatever loopholes required. They did it because it would have cost money and there will be no penalty for not paying.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyri...
by impossiblefork on Friday February 07, 2025 @06:07PM
(#42978552)
So, if they're sued in Japan, or France, do you think that the courts will take any special measures because it's a valuable American corporation?
I suspect that if the case is reasonable they will just convict, and quickly-- appeal denied and all simply because the laws are so straightforward.
Re:Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyri...
by SketchySeaBeast on Saturday February 08, 2025 @09:29AM
(#42983158)
I must have failed to clearly express myself - I don't think Meta should be doing what they are doing, I hope they do end up being punished. But the only way that Meta is going to change its behaviour is by being held accountable in a way that's much more difficult and costly than if they'd simply followed the law in the first place.
Re:Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyri...
by impossiblefork on Saturday February 08, 2025 @10:37AM
(#42983630)
Ah, I'm not sure exactly what I believe here, but this kind of torrenting is obviously illegal-- I'm personally split on how I feel about it morally, because some of these people really are trying to preserve knowledge, and I think that's commendable, at the same time, commercial piracy is something which really does screw over authors with it being some kind of theft-of-service type thing where people exploit other people's work-- and if they felt that the work had no value they could have written another text themselves.
I only really wanted to convey that I believed that it probably isn't obviously easy for Meta to get away with anything in this, even if the US government decides to be lenient for the sake of a high market-cap US company simply because other countries are a viable place to sue as well.
I think I misinterpreted your comment as that you thought that Meta thought that costs would be low because they imagined a US court system that simply ignored the illegality because it's they who committed it, when nothing like that is actually implied in your comment.