- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
Spotify and several major record labels, including UMG, Sony, and Warner, secured a $322 million default judgment against the unknown operators of Anna’s Archive. The shadow library failed to appear in court and briefly released millions of tracks that were scraped from Spotify via BitTorrent. In addition to the monetary penalty, a permanent injunction required domain registrars and other parties to suspend the site’s domain names.
You must log in or # to comment.
AI still out here taking everything. Only the corporations can steal. Maybe they didn’t like that it was then given to people for free, instead sold again.
In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction covering ten Anna’s Archive domains
Bahaha, Fuck Off. The world doesn’t recognize your authority.
does this set precedence for online platforms to sue AI platforms for all the data collection? /s
That was quick. This took a few months, while artists have been dealing with AI stealing their work for years now.
Always remember that, in the eyes of the law, the real crime is being poor.
So, this sentence says it’s actually illegal to download copyrighted material through shadow libraries, I get it and now I wonder what could this mean for Meta’s AI case?
They don’t care and will continue to do it.
Same
So uhm, what’s the new name? Asking for a friend.
you can check these mirror lists for alternatives when the current domains go down
They used a neat trick and just spelled the first name backwards! annA instead of Anna!
Just go to the wiki and look up the domains in the right.
They did it guys!!! Piracy no more /s
Only billionaires and friends allowed
Gee I wonder why warehouses keep catching fires lately…
“Scraped from Spotify via Bitorrent” OK. That’s not how that works.
briefly released millions of tracks that were scraped from Spotify via BitTorrent.
That’s just an awkward sentence construction but it makes sense: they released track via Bittorrent. The tracks were scraped from Spotify.
I sold my car that was purchased from a dealership via private party sale.
I charged my laptop that normally accepts 100W via a 20W phone charger.
I would’ve used a “which” phrase with commas to avoid the confusion, but the sentence as written is valid and makes sense.
Poorly worded
They were meaning that they released via BitTorrent the tracks which were scraped from Spotify
Or they don’t understand the topic
I think it’s just poor wording. It says they released tracks that were scraped from Spotify via BitTorrent. I think the punctuation and sentence structure is awkward. I think what they were trying to say was more along the lines of “they scraped millions of tracks from Spotify, and released them via BitTorrent.”
Still not technically correct, because you don’t release things via BitTorrent. But it at least clarifies that the songs were first scraped, and then released via torrent.
Actually, for a while Spotify did use the BitTorrent protocol for content delivery. So this isn’t too far-fetched.
Spotify itself started by using pirated music, so this is all a bit ironic.
…briefly released millions of tracks, scraped from Spotify, via Bittorrent.
Would have worked better with commas, but makes sense?
Fuck Spotify and their ICE recruitment ad bullshit.
A default judgement just gives Spotify some leverage to try to collect money, property, and get injunctions. But as we know from the pirate bay cases, that’s a losing whack-a-mole battle long term.
But it does make life a bit harder for Anna’s archive unless they show up to fight back, which they probably won’t.
Is this a reverse play? Does that ruling leave open the door to similar rulings against llms? Why did they offer no contest at all?
Why did they offer no contest at all?
Likely because contesting it would require doxxing themselves. The site’s admins survive on anonymity. And you can’t exactly be anonymous in court filings.
There’s also nothing saying they are even in the US. Or at this point even human
ChatGPT play a song that sounds suspiciously like enter sandman.
I love it when they declare fantasy judgements that are never going to be paid.
I wonder if that money goes on the company’s balance sheets before it’s paid.
Why not make it an even $400 million?
Ahhhh, Napster/Kazaa and Metallica vibes all over again.
So uh, do they have a list of domains that should be blocked then? One that we can check out to… uh… ensure our kids aren’t going there and stuff.
deleted by creator
i’m angry at them for being fucking idiots sure but like genuinely this could be a massive problem for all of us.
They didn’t even respond to the charges, which are unenforceable.
Requiring domain registrars and other parties to suspend the site’s domain names is unenforceable?
literally in the article
At the same time, however, it is not guaranteed that the site’s domain names will be suspended.
As reported previously, several domain names, including the Greenland-based .gl version, are linked to registries and registrars outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. court. As such, they previously did not comply to the preliminary injunction, and it is unknown whether the latest order changes that.
Not all domain registers are under their jurisdiction. And domains change constantly.
“Charges” don’t get “enforced”. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
I’m confused by your comment and several people have upvoted it so I guess I need to ask what you’re talking about. I started quoting but it’s just reposting your comment basically. Do you think Anna is the perp they’re suing? Are you saying it’s public because it’s a website and not a torrent or such? (there are like…tons of websites for streaming and downloading pirated stuff…)
How is this a massive problem for all of us? How is this different from any other website posting pirated stuff and getting taken down/legal action against them over the past like… 2 decades? Rereading the article didn’t make anything clearer, I’m genuinely just confused on what you’re saying.
deleted by creator
I have mixed feelings. I do support the Swartz-influenced “information should be free” perspective, and I acknowledge that progressing toward that end requires popularizing a sentiment that influences the democratic process, while it still has some teeth.
But, no doubt popularity shines a spotlight on all data sharing, and link aggregators don’t have as much skin in the game as file hosts. Enabling easy access accelerates the war on information access. Perhaps it’s naive to think piracy and/or information sharing can compete with the deep pockets of capitalist stakeholders. However, I also think this conflict is inevitable as it becomes cheaper and easier to ID all users on a network. I wonder if the time is nigh for the activism that underpins a lot of the information underworld to play out. We are clearly in the acceleration phase of the human arc. Piracy becoming “annoying” is the least of our problems.
I initially downvoted you but then upvoted because I do think your comment valid and emblematic for some in the scene.
