9 ms·
That's the magic of money. Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that coul
by jdiff 1y ago
That's the magic of money. Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you.
The AI industry - soaking up every bit of media available online for commercial purposes, often reproducing it nearly identically - has enough money and capital to influence things its way. And only its way, in case anyone was hoping this might change anything at all for the little guy.
- 1718627440 1y agoThe movie industry also has some money and lobbying power. Surely this is a way larger threat than any single torrenter could ever be?
- jdiff 1y agoThe fact that this is propping up the entire AI industry adds additional weight. When legislating or deciding court cases, some won't be willing to pop the cash cow, some will be worried about falling behind countries that don't enforce copyright evenly. IP owners are trying to go after the AI industry, with only mixed to poor success.
- verzali 1y agoHard to justify that they can't afford to pay when they have multi-billion dollar valuations and are apparently paying hundreds of millions to get a single engineer.
- jdiff 1y agoMaybe. But we are talking about the whole of copyrighted creative works created and sold by humanity. That'll get expensive no matter who you are.
- d1sxeyes 1y ago> Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. All the big bankrupting level fines have been for both downloading and sharing. You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and that is true, but the main reason for the huge fines are that you are taking part in distribution rather than just 'downloading for personal use'.
- jdiff 1y agoGiven the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only interested in making examples out of people and would absolutely go after people for only downloading if the law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby to make changes in that direction to try and curb future AI industry shenanigans.
- 0points 1y ago> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/questions-and-answers-regarding-illegal-file-sharing-and-download https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-of-fines-for-swedish-pirates https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...
- d1sxeyes 1y agoYes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").
- 0points 1y agoYes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.
- anon191928 1y agocourt judges agree to this
- shadowgovt 1y agoIt's more the magic of precedent. The fight about digitized media for personal (entertainment / informational) use were the early aughts. The precedents crafted then don't immediately translate to these cases (novel transformative work from protected materials), and the new precedents have to account for the fact that universities have been training via "piracy" for ages. (The magic of money factors in to the extent that they can afford the lawyers to remind the court that this isn't settled law yet).