- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
I was actually hoping to see that as a defense. The principal thing that copy enforcement corps always cite is ‘we downloaded a copy from their IP, thus they made a copy and distributed the work’.
If this works as a defense here then in effect they make direct download portals legal for the users at least.
deleted by creator
Nobody in the US has ever been busted on copyright grounds for downloading anything, regardless of source. The law does not provide for enforcement against downloading; only uploading.
No, but even a baseless civil suit costs a lot of time and money to fight.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t get us anything new. It does put a big, gaping hole in the FUD that has been spread about the supposed “illegality” of downloading.
You’re forgetting that they’re a rich corporation, and you’re not. They’ll get away with the defense, but even if it set a precedent, copyright groups can still sue you until you’re broke to make an example of you, even if you didn’t legally do anything “wrong”.
As long as you can sue someone for any reason without repercussions, then it’s always going to be the people with more money who come out on top. Always. Wining a lawsuit doesn’t mean you’re not still financially destroyed and driven into poverty for the rest of your life.
this is actually the way it works in australia: downloading content is not illegal; sharing content is illegal
thus as a consumer, usenet is fine
obligatory ianal