215
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by take_five_seconds@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

They also didn't seed,

Supposedly, Meta tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to "avoid" the "risk" of anyone "tracing back the seeder/downloader" from Facebook servers, an internal message from Meta researcher Frank Zhang said, while describing the work as in "stealth mode." Meta also allegedly modified settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," a Meta executive in charge of project management, Michael Clark, said in a deposition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

Regular people are getting fined like $20K per infringement for downloading copyrighted material. 81.7 TB of data is a heck of a lot of numbers of infringements, especially where it's clear it's being used for profit

[-] dead@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

That's just not true. You made that up. If people were getting fined $20k per infringement, piracy would be much less common and you'd see it on the news all the time. Piracy laws in the US are very loose. Most people have pirated books or music or movies or games. Most people have not been fined for it.

Here's how piracy is "prosecuted" in the US in most cases. Copyright holders hire a "troll agency" to monitor public peer-to-peer filesharing of their content. The troll agency records IP addresses of the file sharers. The troll agency then sends threatening emails to the ISPs of the file sharers. In many circumstances, the ISP just deletes the threatening email without even telling you. Sometimes the ISP forwards the email to you. You are not obligated to respond to the email. In order to be "fined" for infringement, the copyright holder has to actually take you to court and prove that you infringed the copyright, which is very difficult to prove.

And if you use a VPN, they would never even find your ISP.

Here's an article from last month describing how RIAA and MPAA uses troll agencies to threaten ISPs.

https://torrentfreak.com/eff-sides-with-cox-to-protect-piracy-accused-internet-users-from-copyright-trolls-250109/

[-] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Under the law, people can actually be charged up to $150,000 per infringement. In reality, it is in the $10k to $20k per infringement range, but I don't think this happens much anymore. There were a bunch of lawsuits 10-15 years ago.

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded

[-] dead@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The article that you posted does not even align with what you are saying. The article that you posted aligns with what I am saying. The article also says in the headline that the RIAA has realize that suing individual downloaders is an ineffective legal strategy.

That article does not say that people are being fined by the government because copyright infringement in most cases is not a criminal case, it's a civil case. The article itself says that the state isn't pursuing it. That article says that copyright trolls harassed 18000 people, 7000 people didn't even respond and 11000 settled out of court or "were not prosecuted". Weird that it doesn't even say how many people even settled of court.

Why are you posting like you work at the RIAA? "Under the law, people can actually be charged up to $150,000 per infringement" Under what law? Why don't you know the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? I already told you that criminal copyright infringement is different from civil copyright infringement. The woman in the article you posted was not being fined by the government. She was being sued in a civil case for uploading music on Kazaa, not even for downloading.

On top of that, the woman who was being sued in the article that you posted never even payed the damages. She declared bankruptcy to avoid paying the damages. "In March 2013, Thomas-Rasset announced she would declare bankruptcy to avoid paying the RIAA the $222,000."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records%2C_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset#Aftermath

Repeating what I said in my previous posts. "In most cases copyright infringement is a civil case, not a criminal case. That means that you are prosecuted by the copyright holder and not the state. The copyright holder has to take you to civil court to sue you." "For it to become a criminal case, you basically have to be charging money for pirated content." "the copyright holder has to actually take you to court and prove that you infringed the copyright, which is very difficult to prove."

Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).[9] To establish criminal liability, the prosecutor must first show the basic elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright, and the violation of one or more of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The government must then establish that defendant willfully infringed or, in other words, possessed the necessary mens rea. Misdemeanor infringement has a very low threshold in terms of number of copies and the value of the infringed works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_United_States#Legal_definition

In order to be fined by the government for piracy, the government would have to prove that you infringed copyright for "financial gain", ie you made money, harmed your financial competitor, etc. If you were charging money for distributing pirated content, it would be criminal. If you financially gain from operating a website which distributes pirated content, it could be criminal.

Pirating books (without charging money) would be a civil case, if even prosecuted, and the copyright holder would have to track you down and then file a court case against you and then make a case against you in court. That is very difficult and costly. This is something that is very unlikely to happen, especially if you use a VPN to mask your internet connection or avoid using peer to peer transfers.

[-] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure why you are so worried about this. I am saying that this does not happen anymore, but there was a time when there were lawsuits against infringers that were in the range of $10k-$20k per infringement. Apologies that I don't know the ins and outs of civil law.

this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
215 points (99.5% liked)

news

24577 readers
510 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS