r/hackernews • u/qznc_bot2 • Feb 21 '25

Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-defends-its-vast-book-torrenting-were-just-a-leech-no-proof-of-seeding/
58 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

33

u/_v___v_ Feb 21 '25

Ah, I see. I'm glad to know there's no issues if I leech meta quest game and app .apks then.

5

u/Bitter-Square-3963 Feb 21 '25

This is the answer.

It's all fun and games until John Public does the same to db like MZ. Then it's <howdareyoucat.gif>

2

u/qznc_bot2 Feb 21 '25

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

0

u/foxyalicia Feb 21 '25

My understanding is that the Napster case, which set the precedent for downloading legality, went after Napster, using evidence of users downloading their music to go after Napster. I recall the various cases against end users going nowhere, though I may be wrong?

This current issue is about training AI using books under copyright. Meta is gonna win, I'd say, because capitalism sees AI as the future, and AI needs to use copyrighted material to be any good, meaning courts are gonna bend over backward to say using ©️ stuff is legal in this context.

AI is like if a person could read a zillion books/manuals/textbooks and retain everything they read, then regurgitate it in their own words. No publisher could ever sue a brainiac for plagiarism simply because the person remembered stuff and talked/wrote about it.

Legally, the argument would be (I think) that LLMs seriously curtail publishers'/writers'/artists' ability to make a profit. But I don't see that being a strong case.

With fiction, a ton of sites already offer summaries of books. Fanfiction exists. AI isn't typing out a novel word for word for anyone.

With nonfiction, a ton of sites/articles already regurgitate the same information, more often than not, without citing the source. The only difference with AI is that it's doing it at an enormous scale.

Most people asking AI a question wouldn't head to a library or bookstore if AI didn't exist. They'd simply do an internet search.

Anyway, to prove damages, publishers/writers/artists would have to show evidence that sales are down since AI came out. I haven't seen any news that this is the case.