[jasonlotito]

> the numerous media industry lawsuits against individuals that only mention downloading,

I never saw any of these. All the cases I saw were related to people using torrents or other P2P software (which aren't just downloading). These might exist, but I haven't seen them.

> It's a bit surprising that you can suddenly download copyrighted materials for personal use and it's kosher as long as you don't share them with others.

Every click on a link is a risk of downloading copyrighted material you don't have the rights to.

Searching the internet, it appears that it's a civil infraction, but it's also confused with the notion that "piracy" is illegal, a term that's used for many different purposes. I see "It is illegal to download any music or movies that are copyrighted." under legal advice, which I know as a statement is not true.

Hence my confusion.

I should note: I'm not arguing from the perspective of whether it's morally or ethically right. Only that even in the context of this thread, things are phrased that aren't clear.

[AlotOfReading]

I just checked first individual suit I could find, which was BMG v. Gonzalez. She used P2P, but the case was specifically about her downloading, not redistributing.

[travoc]

Most P2P tools work in a way where you cannot download without simultaneously uploading.

[AlotOfReading]

Which is beside the point if the plaintiffs don't claim it as an issue. Take the anthropic opinion in the article, where the judge explicitly calls out that there's an unresolved question of whether the model outputs might be infringing that can't be ruled on because the plaintiffs only talk about the inputs.

Gonzalez is a ruling about downloading even though there was also distribution.