Then you should be able to cite a case where this has happened.

What actually happens when you are found with a bunch of pirated material is… Nothing. Because it is not illegal to merely receive an unauthorized copy.

nothing about making/distributing copies or uploading or whatever you think you’re talking about

Got it. From the OP article:

Last month, the authors filed an amended complaint which added these BitTorrent-related allegations to their existing claims. The plaintiffs pointed out that BitTorrent users typically upload content to third parties and suggest that Meta did the same here.

The article and conversation is not about the contract law that would apply with licensing. They aren’t about the fair use exemption which has a commercial usage factors. The article and conversation are talking about simple copyright law: copying and distribution.

Your very first comment in this thread was completely off topic. I apologize that it’s taken me this long to figure out where you’re coming from.

Galaxy S Relay

5 line keyboard!

Why does the customer/user matter at all here when they’re not party to the lawsuit?

This conversation is about the legality of downloading without uploading.

Anthropic is not accused of downloading without uploading. Anthropic is accused of creating copies and distributing those copies to customers. They are being accused of violating copyright by uploading, not downloading.

The Anthropic lawsuit is completely irrelevant to the issue of “downloading only”. Rather than throw out your example entirely, I showed a relationship within your example that actually does relate to the topic under discussion.

• Anthropic is accused of creating and distributing unauthorized copies. (Those are partial copies, rather than complete, but they are still copies, and still infringing.)

• There are entities in your scenario who are receiving those copies, without creating additional copies, or distributing the copies they received. They are, effectively, “downloading only”.

So, tell me about those customers: When they ask Anthropic’s AI for an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, and Anthropic provides them an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, is the customer infringing on the copyright?

Fuck meta, this isn’t about meta, this is about the legal fact that downloading is not infringement. Just because you don’t like this particular downloader does not mean we have to set the precedent that downloading is infringement.

Anthropic was returning substantial parts of the actual work to users. They were creating additional copies of the work. Creating unauthorized copies is infringement.

You would have to argue that the users who received those substantial parts were also infringing on copyright. My point is made when you acknowledge that those users did not infringe by receiving those substantial parts, even if they specifically requested those substantial parts from Anthropic.

when downloading something, you are making a copy.

No, you are not. The uploader is the only entity capable of making the copy. You can’t make a copy of something you do not possess.

When I send you a file, two copies come to exist. The copy on my computer, and the copy I created and sent to you. I made the copy, and I distributed it. You simply received it.

The copy you received is, indeed, unauthorized, but the infringing party is me, not you. I am the one who created and distributed the copy.

Receiving an unauthorized copy is not a copyright violation. A bootleg DVD is illegal to sell; it is not illegal to buy or to own.

Thomas Paine said that he who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, lest he set a precedent that will reach back to himself.

Your argument here seems to be “fuck meta”. Does you opposition remain when it us an actual pirate bring accused? If so, fuck you. If not, why are you trying to lose this for the rest of us?

Undisputed. And irrelevant. The uploader is making and distributing the copy. The downloaded is merely receiving it.

No, sorry, burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If you’re suing, you have to prove the defendant’s culpability; you can’t simply assume it.

The question isn’t whether a copy is being made. The question is who is making the copy. That person is the uploaded, not the downloaded.

The missing “usually” was the issue. When that was added, your statement became true… And it became functionally irrelevant to the issue at hand: Fecesbook took special care to leech only.

This argument has been around since the Napster era. Nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for downloading, and until the law is rewritten to specifically include “receiving” as an offense, nobody ever will.

Of they ever tried to get that law enacted, it would fail unless “personal use” was exempted.

Two are needed to complete a transfer, but only the first can originate one.

Only the first knows what the transfer actually is. I could request a nice video on pirates, and you could send me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Their similarity is not in question. The fact is that you cannot make a copy of something until you have received it. The copy you receive was not created by you: it was created by the sender. You are merely receiving that copy; you are not creating that copy.

There is a spreadsheet on my desktop. You cannot create a copy. I can create a copy and send it to you. Two copies now exist on the planet; I made the copy. You merely received.

Make a copy of the spreadsheet on my desktop.

What’s that? You don’t have access to my desktop? How are you going to copy it, then?

You need the work to be distributed to you, and come to be in your possession, before you can make a copy. So, I can send you a copy of that spreadsheet. Two copies now exist: the one on my desktop, and the one I sent you. I made the copy. I am responsible for making the copy, and I am responsible for distributing it to you.

When you move it from your download folder to your desktop, there are still only two copies in the world. When you copy it from your desktop to a thumb drive, now there are three, and you are responsible for the last one.

You cannot make a copy of something you do not have.

If that were actually true (it’s not), then explain this:

“Plenty of people get letters for leeching only”

Either they were leeching (downloading) only, in which case the letters claiming infringement are without merit, or they were seeding (uploading) as well, and thus infringing.

(Technically, that’s a false dichotomy… There’s other possibilities I don’t want to get into right now.)

And that is transferring the data.

I don’t even have the data. I can’t do anything involving the actual data. I can’t copy it. I can’t transfer it. The UPLOADER is the only one with the capability of transferring the data.

You then initiate the actual transfer. Your computer actively does that.

No, it does not. It requests the data. The server is perfectly capable of answering that request with “Fuck off, I don’t want to.”

It keeps the transfer going and recieves the network packets.

It keeps telling the server “I received that part, thanks, can I have some more?” The server is free to never start the transfer, or to stop it at any time.

Receiving those packets is neither “copying” nor “distributing”.

It literally copies them into RAM and then copies them again onto your harddrive.

And then back again, into and out of ram every time you watch it… That’s not copying. If that was copying, you wouldn’t be able to use a DVD, as that act “copies” the disk every time you watch it. That theory has been raised a few times; to my knowledge, it has never been successful.

Can you instruct someone to do something illegal and you’re fine?

Generally speaking, yes. The examples you gave certainly don’t fit the general case, though. Suppose you’re my Uber driver. I break no law when I ask you to drive faster than the speed limit, or blow through a stop light. You’re free to refuse such requests.

I am the reader

Rather narcissistic of you to assume you are our sole audience…

Plenty of people get letters for leeching only -

So what? You can write me a letter saying you have me on camera receiving a thumb drive that contains an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release, and I’ll say “So? There’s nothing illegal about having received an infringing copy of the latest blockbuster release. Go talk to the guy who handed it to me.”

Those letters are not formal accusations, and certainly aren’t convictions. There is a reason why they are sending you a letter and not serving a leecher with a copyright lawsuit: They know that that suit would be thrown out when they can’t actually claim a copy was made or distributed.

“Saving” is not “copying”. “Saving” is “receiving”.

I don’t have access to an original; I am physically incapable of creating a “copy”.

One of us seems intent on repeatedly misrepresenting the situation. I am inclined to leave the determination of that point to the reader.