| ▲ | autoexec 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I can say for certain that Meta did it. They admitted to it. (https://www.wired.com/story/new-documents-unredacted-meta-co...) Do you think that OpenAI or Anthropic should get a pass for using torrents if they used special BitTorrent clients that only leached? Do you think the RIAA would be cool with me if I did the same? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | simianwords 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
incorrect. > There is no dispute that Meta torrented LibGen and Anna's Archive, but the parties dispute whether and to what extent Meta uploaded (via leeching or seeding) the data it torrented. A Meta engineer involved in the torrenting wrote a script to prevent seeding, but apparently not leeching. See Pls. MSJ at 13; id. Ex. 71 ¶¶ 16–17, 19; id. Ex. 67 at 3, 6–7, 13–16, 24–26; see also Meta MSJ Ex. 38 at 4–5. Therefore, say the plaintiffs, because BitTorrent's default settings allow for leeching, and because Meta did nothing to change those default settings, Meta must have reuploaded “at least some” of the data Meta downloaded via torrent. The plaintiffs assert further that Meta chose not to take any steps to prevent leeching because that would have slowed its download speeds. Meta responds that, even if it reuploaded some of what it downloaded, that doesn't mean it reuploaded any of the plaintiffs’ books. It also notes that leeching was not clearly an issue in the case until recently, and so it has not yet had a chance to fully develop evidence to address the plaintiffs’ assertions. They did leeching but not seeding. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-n-d-cal/1174228... > If I a civilian did this I would face time in prison no if you had leeched its is very unlikely that you would face time in prison. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||