this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
479 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4553 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
479
French publishers and authors sue Meta for allegedly training AI models on their books without consent, say they have evidence of “massive” copyright breaches. (www.bnnbloomberg.ca)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

French publishers and authors are suing Meta Platforms Inc. for copyright infringement, accusing the tech giant of using their books to train its generative artificial intelligence model without authorization.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I guess my post was too long. Yes, France could enforce a judgment against Meta by leaning on the French division of Meta. The question is, on what legal basis this would happen.

They are suing because of something that happened in the US, right? What argument is there to apply French law?

That's not merely politically contentious. It is explicitly against internation law; treaties that France has signed.

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Since Meta operates in France, it is being punished for something that happened in France. Legal representatives of the company as a whole are present in the EU. Divisions are not relevant to this discussion.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is the argument that something that a multinational corporation does in one country, happens in all countries where the corporation is present? There's no way that would stand up in court.

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why would they then give a shit about complying with ePrivacy and GDPR?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They have to comply with these laws in Europe. They do not comply with them outside of Europe.

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They are operating in Europe.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They follow French law in France and US law in the US. How else could it work?

They can’t choose to apply US labor law in France. Do you think they can be made to follow French labor law in Silicon Valley?

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I bring you the example of the Territorial Scope of the GDPR since it is the one I am most acquainted with:

  • This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.

  • This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:

              the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or

              the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.

  • This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.

Similar articles are there for the AI Act (which got JD Vance to talk shit about the EU on the 11th February) and the Product Liability Directive.

This is the reality we live in. Up to you to accept it or not.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

GDPR is not copyright, despite all similarities. I assume that you accept that copyright does not work like that, since you are changing the subject.

Note that the GDPR does not claim to be applicable in third countries; ie outside the territory where EU law is enforced. It only seeks to regulate dealings of outside parties with people in the EU. Even that can't be practically enforced, usually. Once data leaves the EU, there isn't much EU governments can do about it, which is why the GDPR has serious rules about data transfers to third countries. (That's a problem for the fediverse.)

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

As I stated, I am more familiar with the articles of the GDPR, nothing more.

I expect a company like Meta to have a EU corporate entity and legal representation in the EU, in which case the charges can be applied to the EU entity and authorities may even seize assets within the Union.

[–] banana_lama@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did they deploy their AI in Europe? The AI trained on stolen data? It's like saying that you pirated a Disney movie in Europe and are selling derivative work from that in the US

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Did they deploy their AI in Europe?

That's a good question. I just checked with Meta's website. It says Meta AI is "not available" in my country, which is in the EU.