top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 68 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Does that make it legal? Cool.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 41 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I have ThinkPad at work which is pleasant enough to touch due to rubberised plastic but wanking with it sounds tricky because of how stiff it’s hinges are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Doesn't it have the ThinkPad rubber nipple(TM)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    They're not saying they did it for Meta's own personal use. They're arguing a bunch of private individuals did for their own personal use and they just happened to be using Meta's network, which, given that this is about 157 downloads, it honestly makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    Pirating for personal satisfaction is legal ?

    Well blimey !

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    “It was for our team-building circle jerk”

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago*

    For Meta employees to jack off? That's a nice benefit system!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Me, an intellectual: same.

  • source
  • 13 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 85 points 1 year ago

    Guess pirating for personal use is on the table now, boys!

  • source
  • [–] 146 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So Meta says pirating is not theft if it‘s for personal use, huh? Good to know.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago

    I thought that was weird, too, but that's not what they're arguing actually. Their argument is that these were pirated for personal use by various people on the company network over a course of years and that the IP address is not sufficient to identify the appropriate defendant (not Meta). Accordingly, they argue the case should be dropped because tje pleading does not, and cannot from what has been provided, identify a correct defendant. At first blush, it isn't an unreasonable argument. It would be like suing a university for detecting porn torrents on its network over a number of years (and alleging that the relatively small number of torrents were for AI research/training data).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Does this even make any difference outside of Switzerland (were pirating for personal use is actually legal)?

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Like that justifies it...

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Why the ai slop? It's not really needed for anything. You wasted a gallon of water for that?

  • source
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Wow, I didn't realize Anal Butt Pirates had 2000+ volumes. I've fallen behind, no pun in ten did.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media, which are known for popular adult brands including Vixen, Tushy, Blacked, and Deeper, filed a copyright infringement complaint at a California federal court. The companies allege that Meta downloaded at least 2,396 of their films since 2018, allegedly to aid their AI video training.

    “[T]he small number of downloads—roughly 22 per year on average across dozens of Meta IP addresses—is plainly indicative of private personal use, not a concerted effort to collect the massive datasets Plaintiffs allege are necessary for effective AI training,” Meta writes

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments