upvote

points

by gruez6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby c2h5oh4 hours ago|
next
[-]
Courts have also ruled that sharing in P2P network is enough to get hit with 150k in statutory damages per shared work.

AI companies did quite a bit of uploading while e.g. getting Anna's archive over BitTorrent.

reply
upvoteby eastbound4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's transformative. Not aimed at exact reproduction, so not in the scope of copyright law.
reply
upvoteby tareqak3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers. Their use of the BitTorrent protocol to acquire these files would not have been transformative.
reply
upvoteby DANmode1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers.

Did they?

Are you sure?

reply
upvoteby xethos1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Meta argued in court that yes, they did upload when torrenting

> Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.

https://torrentfreak.com/uploading-pirated-books-via-bittorr...

reply
upvoteby DoctorOetker56 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I wonder which murderer will use that argument: "it wasn't my choice to shoot the person, it's just intrinsic to the technology that when pulling the trigger, the pistol fires"
reply
upvoteby DANmode20 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
SUPER interesting!

Especially since it ISN’T an inherent part of a the protocol - just the default of most clients.

Wonder if TF skipping pointing that out was intentional!

reply
upvoteby lukan1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No, only in some instances maybe, they were mostly leechers.
reply
upvoteby esseph1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers.

Not necessarily. You can literally turn uploads off and leech torrents.

reply
upvoteby lobf3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I think you misread. There is nothing transformative about bittorrent automatically sharing parts of a file you're downloading with your peers.
reply
upvoteby adastra226 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Hacking other companies is illegal as far as I understand.
reply
upvoteby gruez6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
1. OP specifically mentioned "IP violating antics", not hacking

2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute

reply
upvoteby someothherguyy4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent

No, they don't, see laws that make negligent behavior illegal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

reply
upvoteby crote4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
But officer, I didn't mean for my autonomous bank vault busting robot to autonomously bust any bank vaults!
reply
upvoteby crote4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Okay, and? If anything, the Swartz case was even more direct fair use. There's very little to use JSTOR for which isn't some form of teaching, scholarship, or research!

Clearly the fact that the end-use is (possibly) fair use isn't the only thing that matters.

reply
upvoteby Madmallard3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It wouldn't be ruled fair use in a sane society without bribery and lobbying with competent technologically savvy law interpreters.
reply