• UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I think the best part of the article (besides the decision of course) is the following:

    “A Strike 3 Holding investigation found that 47 IP addresses belonging to Meta were used to torrent 2,396 of its videos a total of 6,008 times between 2018 and 2025.”

    If videos are being downloaded more than once, it’s hard to argue it’s just for model training. lol.

    • toiletobserver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      7 hours ago

      $150,000 fine per civil infringement X 6,008 instances… $901,200,000.

      Now assume a settlement for half the value and it’s still $450M

      Do it porn industry! On principle.

      • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Of course. This may have the SNAFU that they’re tracking torrents. And if Facebook gets fined, your VPN may be next?

      • thejml@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Honestly:

        “A Strike 3 Holding investigation found that 47 IP addresses belonging to Meta were used to torrent 2,396 of its videos a total of 6,008 times between 2018 and 2025.”

        That’s 2396 x 6008 x $150,000=$2.159 Billion

        And honestly, that’s what they need to do. $450M is a cost of business expense.

          • immutable@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I think it’s due to an incorrect reading of this sentence

            “A Strike 3 Holding investigation found that 47 IP addresses belonging to Meta were used to torrent 2,396 of its videos a total of 6,008 times between 2018 and 2025.”

            There’s two interpretations of this sentence, that they was a total of 6008 downloads of 2396 videos, so some videos were downloaded multiple times.

            The math in that comment is reading it to mean the 2396 items were downloaded 6008 each.

            Since the original uses the clarifier “a total of 6,008” the first interpretation is the likely correct one and the commenter accidentally interpreted it the second, incorrect, way.

            Easy enough mistake to make if you skip over the phrase “a total of”