> Eventually, [Zuckerberg] manages to sit next to Xi at a dinner where he begs Xi to name his next child. Xi turns him down.

That Mark never fails to deliver.

> When Wynn-Williams give birth to her second child, she hemorrhages, almost dies, and ends up in a coma.

> Afterwards, Kaplan gives her a negative performance review because she was "unresponsive" to his emails and texts while she was dying in an ICU.

Holy shit.

Thank you, that was the quote I was thinking of, but couldn't remember.

I would replace "too big" with "too rich". Other than that, I agree.

I liked Doctorow better before he cheered for stricter copyright enforcement.

It was his decision and he conspired with his employees to do it for profit. The statutory maximum IIRC is around $250k per work, on the criminal enforcement side. If the rights holders can show actual damages greater than that they can sue civilly for those damages plus some fixed amount per work.

Because society is based on power structures and the people at the top of power structures generally do not arrest themselves.

As someone who’s engaged in private piracy basically my entire life I’ve never even considered venturing into gray areas of licensing when procuring for my company. In fact I’ve done the opposite and rooted it out wherever I’ve found it.

It just seems obvious to me that a profit seeking venture should be held to a higher standard when it comes to infringing on the property rights of other companies and individuals, especially if they seek to enforce their own.

Those kids weren’t hypocritically enforcing their own property rights and making employees sign ndas while downloading shit from tpb.

Do you think if there was a mass movement of students moving off Spotify and downloading MP3s, they would _not_ be charged today?

The hypocrisy is what has at least me upset

> I just don't see why everyone seems to not be cheering that perhaps we are not going to go back to the days where all those kids are going to be re charged. It almost feels like everyone wants to go back to labels carpet bombing students with lawsuits

It’s currently just as bad but in a different way, imho.

The ability for labels (or whoever owns the rights) to wantonly invoke automated DMCA copyright strikes and demonetization on social media channels like YouTube is borderline criminal to me.

Their lobby did a great job getting them more than they deserved (specifically with regards to the facilitation of capricious invoking of DMCA), but the abuse of the rules limits the growth of the creator economy in very unhealthy ways.

False dichotomy. We can obviously have both. We can destroy corporations that rely on copyright to exist and then abuse that system to profit. We can also ignore college students and minor contributory copyright infringement.

The difference in scope here should be obvious.

We can similarly punish drug dealers while not punishing drug users. In fact it's already policy in large parts of the USA.

Because the 'perhaps' there is a load-bearing word that is doing a lot of work and it's going to be come crashing down sooner or later.

Of course some kids are going to be charged for this kind of shit, it's still a rules for thee but not for me world, the 'not for me' folks are just a hell of a lot more brazen about it.

Because there is no reasonable expectation that we are not going back to those days. In fact, we are more likely to go back to those days then not.

Those students are not Zuckenberg. They will not be treated as Zuckenberg. The legal theories that apply to them dont apply to Zuckenberg and vice versa. They do not have money to mount defense and if they do, they will be in debt till the end of their lives.

I'm a copyright abolitionist. I don't care at all that they're training AIs on copyrighted works. I care a lot that they're not getting relentlessly hunted down by the copyright industry for it like all the "pirates" that came before them. The copyright industry has actually ruined lives by litigating their "infringement" nonsense. It's only fair that they go after this guy as well.

His constant violation of people's privacy is also horrendous and worthy of condemnation, but that's not directly related to the copyright infringement matter. It's a separate issue.

You get Al Capone on the charge you can make stick.

I'm kinda being upset because on top of his ridiculously amoral and sometimes illegal behavior there are people which lives were ruined because they shared few mp3 files. Now this person once again — have absolutely no responsibility for his actions even for something so idiotic like copyright infringement when others were severely punished.

Lets define more things society doesn't want to happen as not-crimes so we can do more of them.

Principles and law (that determines 'crime', a legal word) are not the same thing.

Why not both?

What are his real crimes?

Because the rich can do it and we can’t.

It's the increase in emotionality, principles loosely held, it allows a particular goal they get tossed, Tbc this extends far beyond the current topic and commenters.

He likes sham investigations of attorneys general.

[flagged]

A company being "worth" some amount doesn't mean it has that much money and real property; it means there exist people willing to buy shares, on the margin, at a price which works out like that. One of the common (very rough) approximations is that a business is worth as much as the profit it's expected to make over the next 20 years. But one of the reasons (there are many) that this is only a rough guide, is that if you tried to sell too much of a big company all in one go, it usually depresses the price a lot, and the other way around (trying to buy a whole company) tends to raise the price a lot; both effects are because most people have different ideas about how much any given company is really worth despite that rough guide, and trade their shares at different prices while you're doing it. You may note this is a circular argument, this is indeed part of the problem.

IIRC, Facebook's cash is more like $81-82 billion.