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.
I think the difference here lies in the fact that Meta the company was downloading it for model training. The company itself was doing something illegal. If an individual was to download copyright material, it is not the fault of the VPN provider.
Here is a terrible analogy. It is sort of like blaming an auto company for someone running over a person. However, if an auto company was purposely designing cars that ran people over, then it is on the auto company. (I did say it was a bad analogy).
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.
$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.
Of course. This may have the SNAFU that they’re tracking torrents. And if Facebook gets fined, your VPN may be next?
I think the difference here lies in the fact that Meta the company was downloading it for model training. The company itself was doing something illegal. If an individual was to download copyright material, it is not the fault of the VPN provider.
Here is a terrible analogy. It is sort of like blaming an auto company for someone running over a person. However, if an auto company was purposely designing cars that ran people over, then it is on the auto company. (I did say it was a bad analogy).