Perfect example of 'rules for thee but not for me'. Assholes have no issue throwing the book at individuals infringing on copyright, then will turn around and pull heinous shit like this. Heinous in their eyes mind you.
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
704 points (99.2% liked)
News
24715 readers
3646 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How are these LLMs not a poison pill already? Anything they generate has got to be such a mashup of permissive and protective licensing.
So long as we’re not just singling out Meta. They’ve all done it.
At least Meta, with its Llama model family, has enabled the open source LLM space to flourish (along with Mistral, AI2, Alibaba, Eleuther, and many others).
What-aboutism. I know. I’m okay with what’s happening here in the sense that in return we’ve gotten magical (compared to the SoTA five years ago) models with seemingly emergent reasoning capabilities and expertise in basically every domain. That’s huge, even if it’s started to feel normal.
The issue, of course, is creatives whose content was stolen now losing out on opportunities or revenue that they relied on, meaning fewer creatives in the future and more AI slop.
Not seeding is hilariously on-brand for Meta though. Maybe it’s the ‘possession < distribution’ defence?
So long as we’re not just singling out Meta. They’ve all done it.
They have to single out Meta for the narrative to work. Objectively, this is about major content owners, corporations, wanting a piece of something other people have created. That's a tough sell, so you have to spin a story.
Not seeding is hilariously on-brand for Meta though. Maybe it’s the ‘possession < distribution’ defence?
Sorta. AI training is clear-cut fair use, which is why you get manipulative stories like this one. What exactly do these out-of-context quotes say about the law? Nothing, but it serves the narrative.
Actually seeding the content is problematic. If you knew that the downloaders had some legal purpose, that might work. But just sharing it is hard to justify.
Yes, we know: the law is carefully crafted so that it's only illegal if WE do it.
Yeah, that's one of the slogans they use to manipulate you. It's like the one going around before elections. Both parties are the same and so an outsider is needed, like Trump. How's that working out for the US right now?
Mega Chad. Keep on seeding Mark!
I don't think you read the article. They leeched off the servers. They didn't seed back.
They should be getting fined for hit-and-run violations!
I said this in another thread on this subject- this is a very clear violation of the Berne Convention and Meta could find itself in court all over the world because of this.
https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
Probably not, but I can hope.
That is an insane amount of data. I'm trying to fathom what 82TB of text files looks like and I can't.
So... if we say every ebook is 10mb (that's well into the high end, only a few are that big)
That's 8,589,934 10mb books.
AI says the average public library in the USA has 116,481 items (but that includes all media formats), but if we go with that, then 82 TB is about 73.74 average sized libraries with no repeating content.
NYPL has around 10 million books and an additional 10 million manuscripts in its collection. Over 54 million total articles for lending.
Not the largest by far, but still mind boggling in size.
To torrent and ingest something of that size is crazy.
Damn, that's huge.
Never seen a library that big before. The university here has about 1.5 million and that's a big library.
I guess they should have just borrowed them from the library.
So the "don't be evil" crowd casually torrented 82TB of shadow library data through corporate hardware. Internal messages show researchers knew it crossed ethical lines, yet Zuck personally greenlit circumventing copyright. The cognitive dissonance of building AI empires on pirated foundations would be poetic if it weren't so predictably dystopian.
This isn't oversight—it's systemic rot. Fines become tax-deductible line items while lobbyists ensure regulatory capture. When your legal team costs more than the penalties, infringement transforms into R&D strategy. The only surprise is anyone still pretending capital understands "ethics" beyond PR gymnastics.
Meanwhile indie authors get demonetized for quoting haikus. But sure, let's investigate if open models borrowed a few ChatGPT outputs. Nothing accelerates innovation quite like megacorps rewriting IP law through sheer audacity.
Your comments are a little odd. Why do you do all the bold callouts?
"Don't be evil" was Google, and they abandoned that motto a while ago in favor of "think of the shareholders!"
As soon as they became a publicly tradable company they are obligated, by the Dodge v Ford ruling, to only maximize shareholder value. Being not evil isn't an option.
No matter what kind of company you are, you have an obligation to follow the laws of whatever jurisdictions you're doing business in.
Also, there's actually a lot of leeway in regards to doing your fiduciary duty to your shareholders. You're not obligated to maximize short term profits at the expense of long term (ie by retaining skilled employees). That's usually just a shitty board trying to suck as much money out of a company as possible and a CEO who doesn't want to get fired by the board.
I mean the whole metaverse thing was a long term play to capture a future market, which involved a lot of RnD money they just decided to light it on fire instead of making a useful product.
Time for the ol' slap-on-the-wrist few million dollar settlement, or whatever amount Facebook makes in a day; if the courts even bother to function at this point.
Jammie Thomas had to pay over $9000 per song she shared on Kazaa and that was like 15 years ago. Inflation + millions of shares should mean billions of dollars owed to the publishers... Plus obviously deleting or forfeiting ownership of all the models trained on that data, naturally.
Make it a royalty, until the data stops being used keep on paying.
Odds of severe punishment? Slim.
Word on the street is that they might be facing almost a dollar per petabyte.
Street value $8.7 trillion
Odds of ~~severe~~ punishment? ~~Slim~~ None.
Remember Aaron Swartz? Do you think Zuck will go to prison too?
lolno. Fuckerberg won't see the inside of a prison cell. He's what we like to call in the law industry, "rich"
yes, he'll be tormented by the feds to the point he'll take his own life.
Seed it Mark you asshole!
The biggest hit and run in the history of torrenting.
He can't, the seed is stored in what Mark lacks!
Rules for thee, not for me.
I'm mostly upset that this puts z-library and libgen back high up on the anti-pirating enforcers radar
It’s fucked these guys can pirate all this shit and make money off it. But if the masses access it, shut it the fuck down! Break encryption! Curb the laws! Penalize! Penalize! Penalize!
"When they do it it's progress - when you do it it's piracy"
As much as I hate much of the news about AI, I love the dilemma this puts the copyright lawyers and tech bros in. Either they admit that the majority of copyright law enforcement is a joke and stifles innovation - or they admit the creation of AI using stolen works is standard practise and requires government intervention to get back on track.
That is like all of the books...
Yeah, they're not exactly large in file size.
And guess what will happen as a result of these discoveries - nothing.
only if you're rich like fuckerberg. If you're a poor person, straight to the execution chamber