• melfie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Their LLMs might get a little confused now when people ask about British shows on BBC.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Do they mention if the trackers were private? It’ll be interesting to see in discovery the details of the trackers and which ones are being monitored by the industry.

        • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Private ones too. Privacy in private trackers is largely a myth, and you should be using a VPN regardless of public or private.

          If you (a relative Joe Schmo Nobody in the torrenting scene) can get an invite to the private tracker, you really think a billion dollar media industry couldn’t arrange to get one too? Of course they have straw-man accounts on the big private trackers, and of course they’re quietly seeding media to be able to log IP addresses that connect to the swarm.

          The only real benefit private trackers have is better seeding requirements (meaning stuff typically downloads faster, and is less likely to stall indefinitely) and better request systems (meaning obscure media is usually easier to find, and you can request media that is missing).

          • lemongarlic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 minutes ago

            I would think they would be better about it because private tracker accounts cost money and big companies don’t have infinite resources to fight piracy, they can’t get every tracker.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Never thought we’d be rooting on Big Porn to help save integrity of the internet, but I’m all for it. They brought us HD, 4K, VR, now let’s go save the rest.

  • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    7 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
      36
      ·
      6 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
        ·
        1 hour 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
        6 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
            ·
            4 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”

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Does this pave the way forward for all published content, then? Especially if they win their case against meta (or more likely just receive a fat settlement out of court)

    • Séimhe (sé / é)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This seems to mean that Meta can’t have the case dismissed. So I’m guessing that other companies who can demonstrate similar downloading patterns, or present similar evidence can also bring a case forward.

      I’d imagine that the outcome of the case will be more telling.

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Cue settlement because Meta cannot stomach discovery on this one. As the article shows, this lawsuit comes from discovery in a different lawsuit. These are the sorts of dominos that trigger settlements.

    • Burninator05@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The settlement should include the removal of anything that was gained by training on the data. Meta will complain that the data is too ingrained in the model and can’t be removed. They likely aren’t wrong but that does not seem like Blacked’s problem. Maybe sell them a license to continue to use the data at $200k per year per video until they can definitively prove that none of the data is still in the model?

      • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Now that would be interesting, because you can’t prove a negative. The only way for Meta to prove that none of the videos is making their way intot he model is to provide clear evidence of all the other videos and stuff that are making their way into the model.

      • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Now that would be interesting, because you can’t prove a negative. The only way for Meta to prove that none of the videos is making their way intot he model is to provide clear evidence of all the other videos and stuff that are making their way into the model.

  • Jhex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I hope Meta get it like one of those tiny blonde girls I’ve heard feature in Blached videos tehehehehe