this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
692 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
85463 readers
3950 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Honestly:
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.
I don't understand your math.
I think it’s due to an incorrect reading of this sentence
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”
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).
imagine not using a VPN