In one of the AI lawsuits faced by Meta, the company stands accused of distributing pirated books. The authors who filed the class-action lawsuit allege that Meta shared books from the shadow library LibGen with third parties via BitTorrent. Meta, however, says that it took precautions to prevent 'seeding' content. In addition, the company clarifies that there is nothing 'independently illegal' about torrenting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (24 children)

Yeah? Then do it. Show me a law relevant to this case that makes downloading an infringement.

You will be able to cite plenty of unenforceable propaganda, sure. The RIAA, MPAA, and various other trolls have broadly misrepresented the topic. You'll even find this sort of FUD repeated by certain officials and government agencies.

But you will not any actual law relevant to this case. You will not find any judicial precedent where someone has been found to have violated copyright law solely for requesting and receiving copyrighted material.

Copyright law does not provide an enforcement mechanism against a recipient, even when that recipient knowingly requests an infringing copy. The only available mechanisms are against the entity creating the copy, and the entity distributing the copy.

You can prove me wrong by citing US Code, Federal regulation, or judicial precedent. I will not accept corporate propaganda, nor statements made by government entities unless those statements actually carry the force of law.

The closest you will be able to come is a theory that the "receiver" is somehow conspiring or colluding with the "sender", and the law and precedent on conspiracy/collusion doesn't quite fit. (Private trackers are getting close to that line, though...)

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (16 children)

In Germany we definitely have this:

https://www.juraforum.de/gesetze/urhg/53-vervielfaeltigungen-zum-privaten-und-sonstigen-eigenen-gebrauch

and we have Störerhaftung which can also get you in trouble even if you didn't do it yourself.

In the USA it'd probably be something like https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
which says the copyright holder has exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies [...]
Which is kind of what you do when downloading something. There will be a copy on your harddisk... And (1) does NOT limit this to redistribution, like (3)... I'm not sure how it turns out in practice. I don't follow American court rulings that closely.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -2 points 4 months ago (15 children)

which says the copyright holder has exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies [...] Which is kind of what you do when downloading something.

The uploader does that. Not the downloader. You can't copy something you do not possess; the copy is created by the uploader. The copy on your harddisk was created and distributed by the uploader; you did not create the copy, nor did you distribute it. You merely received it.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

you are literally choosing to run the software that writes it to your disk. You also (probably) take steps to ensure the uploader does not have access to your disk. You are in control of what gets saved

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Saving" is not "copying". "Saving" is "receiving".

I don't have access to an original; I am physically incapable of creating a "copy".

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

it's a digital item. You can only make a copy

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago

Make a copy of the spreadsheet on my desktop.

What's that? You don't have access to my desktop? How are you going to copy it, then?

You need the work to be distributed to you, and come to be in your possession, before you can make a copy. So, I can send you a copy of that spreadsheet. Two copies now exist: the one on my desktop, and the one I sent you. I made the copy. I am responsible for making the copy, and I am responsible for distributing it to you.

When you move it from your download folder to your desktop, there are still only two copies in the world. When you copy it from your desktop to a thumb drive, now there are three, and you are responsible for the last one.

You cannot make a copy of something you do not have.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Hehe, I don't know if they don't want to understand it, or if it's a lack of technical knowledge... But yes. In the digital realm, a copy and the original are identical in every way, no matter how you twist it. And you can't even properly transfer any item it in the same sense as it applies to physical items. (Unless we're talking about quantum computers or something like that...)

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago

Their similarity is not in question. The fact is that you cannot make a copy of something until you have received it. The copy you receive was not created by you: it was created by the sender. You are merely receiving that copy; you are not creating that copy.

There is a spreadsheet on my desktop. You cannot create a copy. I can create a copy and send it to you. Two copies now exist on the planet; I made the copy. You merely received.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (20 replies)