this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
240 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
82460 readers
2583 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Literally the first thing I said was in regards to more sensible copyright making this all a moot point but you do you.
The only reason Meta needs to get it is because it's entirely hypocritical to all the dirt poor people who couldn't afford these kind of lawyers. It doesn't make the current legal status right or correct. It's just a slap in the face to someone like Swartz who died over far less.
I read this as setting precedent that others couldn't. Court cases like this are one way to make it possible for everyone to break an absurd law.
Precedent only applies equally if we are able to prove the same in court as Meta did. Are you going to need petabytes of pirated data to train your AI? Can you afford a team of top quality lawyers to fight your case and prove you were training a small locally-hosted AI at home? Do you think Meta, of all companies, really is fighting for you to be able to do the same as them? You will still get taken to court, you will still have to fight your case, "precedent" isn't an automatic get out of jail free card. Do you have the money to fight massive copyright holders with endless money? Of course you don't, none of us do.
Precedent means we can cite it, so yes, this helps a bit. The rest you wrote is a fair bit of assumption or unnecessary: evidence to back your points would help. Otherwise, it just looks like inconclusive defeatism.
And unlike Meta, you will be thrown in prison like Jeremiah Perkins.
Even if found completely guilty, the worst that will happen is Meta has to pay a fine: which means nothing because any fine is rolled into the cost of doing business. Meta knows it is stupid to not break the law.
We don't get better laws if everyone is cheering for the copyright industry. Everything after your first point goes against that. Goliath, the same one that beat up Aaron, finally has a match in his own weight category, and you are hoping he wins basically.
What kind of "better law" do you think will come out of this? That regular people like us will be able to share freely?
You think that the law being applied on poor people but not on the wealthy is a healthy way to get a better law?
Get the fuck real and nobody is asking for the copyright cabal to win as much as we are saying "look, if this is the how the law is going to be applied, apply it evenly, don't just fuck over poor people but give the wealthy a pass."
And poor people who don't have the weight and money of Meta aren't going to be able to prove that they need the same amount of data to train an LLM so they probably will still have the law held against them. Get fucking real man.
What country do you think you live in? One where laws are applied evenly or rationally? Or one where fascists have taken over the god damned government? Because guess what it's the latter and the laws are effectively meaningless for the wealthy but still held against the poor. Sure, if that's what you want, go for it, but it damn sure won't suddenly get us better laws or let regular people torrent without worry. Congress has been deadlocked for decades and does nothing but hurt common people and give corporations a ticket to do whatever and you think better laws will come out of this? Seriously, once again, get fucking real.
Encouraging laws you don't like does nothing but cement them. We are currently, as a society, begging lawmakers for harder copyright laws.
I get the Justice system sucks but making the wrong laws stronger does not make it better.
Think about what you are saying is all, you tend to write long elaborate speeches on why copyright deserves to win. There is being critical of AI, and then there's being a mouthpiece from r copyright companies. I'm not trying to be mean here, sorry.
Dude, I have been promoting copyright law being changed and being shortened for 25 fucking years.
Do you even know who Rufus Pollock is or anything about his research into copyright lengths? Because I was around when that shit was published. I hosted DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album on Grey Tuesday as a fuck you to the Beatles copyright holders since the Grey Album should have been considered fair use as it was released for free with no profit at all. I was part of the Kopimi collective.
Not wanting corporations to get a pass while we all get fucked is not the same thing. You're not being mean, you're being obtuse.
None of that matter if, right now, you are cheering on copyright laws. There's no reason to stop promoting change now.
You repeating that I am cheering them on does not make it true. Get some reading comprehension. I repeat, you're being obtuse.
Do you hope Meta or the copyright industry wins this case? Maybe I misunderstood.
I mean a loss for meta is technically a win for everyone most of the time but I'd expect more pragmatism in this case.
This is why the left can't get anywhere. You get one guy yelling "just follow the rules!" but he can't be heard because you have another guy screaming "smash the state!"
Thats my observation for the day.
There isn't a good winner in this, both outcomes suck, but one slightly less than the other. If Meta wins, it will not trickle down to regular people's usage of bittorrent being considered fair use, I can guarantee you that. If the copyright holders win, the outcomes still sucks, but at least large corporations will be held to the same standards as regular people instead of having another exception carved out for corporations to be able to do what is considered a crime for regular people.
There isn't a movement to change copyright like their used to be. There isn't a viable North American Pirate Party. Those days are gone, and have been for a long time. I remember the movement and how big it was for a while. We never got mainstream acceptance or appeal and we all started getting old and young people stopped paying attention for the most part.
Like I said, I'd rather copyright law be changed, but that's not what will happen here. You don't get new laws crafted out of court case wins and losses, that's not how this works, laws are crafted in congress.
Meta is running all this on the claim that they need this to train their AI, which is all fine and good, but them winning won't make it so I can make the same claim if I get caught pirating. Why? Because the copyright lawyers will argue reasonably that I didn't pirate enough data to build an AI and so I can't be held to the same standard as Meta, who absolutely needed thousands of terabytes of data to train theirs. The scales are totally different and the scale of their operation is part of their argument, that because of the scale of their AI, that there's no way they could conceivably train it without going broke paying copyright holders. If I am caught pirating a 1/10000th of the same data as they are, the copyright holders will claim, very easily, that I cannot possibly be building the same kind of AI that Meta is building because I would need way more data for that, and that I must be held to account because I must not be actually using it for AI. People like you and me can't afford a team of high profile lawyers to argue our cases, and so we will lose, precedent simply won't apply to us.
Meta winning will just make it so there's another avenue for corporations to do whatever the fuck they want while people like you and me still have to follow draconian absurd copyright laws. Laws are made in congress, and copyright length can only be changed by bills in congress becoming law. The outcome of this court case is bad either way but it is marginally less bad for people like us to at least have corporations held to the same standard we are.
EDIT:
Final note, even if copyright law does get changed in congress, it will be because groups like OpenAI and Meta will lobby the government to change it, and they will not lobby for regular people to get the same rights because they don't want regular people building their own AIs. Like I said, both outcomes here suck ass, but these giant corporations are not and never will be fighting for people like you and I to have reasonable fair use laws. They will lobby for them to be able to do it, once again, based on their sheer scale, so nobody else can compete or make truly open products in their own home. They want ownership over the process, they won't send lobbyists in to help regular people, they send lobbyists in to help themselves.
This applies doubly so to Meta, if you know anything about Zuckerberg or the company, you'd know out of everyone he is ruthless and will do absolutely anything to crush nascent competition.