I thought that was weird, too, but that’s not what they’re arguing actually. Their argument is that these were pirated for personal use by various people on the company network over a course of years and that the IP address is not sufficient to identify the appropriate defendant (not Meta). Accordingly, they argue the case should be dropped because tje pleading does not, and cannot from what has been provided, identify a correct defendant. At first blush, it isn’t an unreasonable argument. It would be like suing a university for detecting porn torrents on its network over a number of years (and alleging that the relatively small number of torrents were for AI research/training data).
So Meta says pirating is not theft if it‘s for personal use, huh? Good to know.
I thought that was weird, too, but that’s not what they’re arguing actually. Their argument is that these were pirated for personal use by various people on the company network over a course of years and that the IP address is not sufficient to identify the appropriate defendant (not Meta). Accordingly, they argue the case should be dropped because tje pleading does not, and cannot from what has been provided, identify a correct defendant. At first blush, it isn’t an unreasonable argument. It would be like suing a university for detecting porn torrents on its network over a number of years (and alleging that the relatively small number of torrents were for AI research/training data).
Oh no it’s totally cool according to them. You can pirate at least 80tb worth of books, and then sell material based on it. It’s cool.
The catch is you can only commit crimes if you’re a billion dollar corporation!