Meta Says Porn Stash was for 'Personal Use,' Not Training AI Models

[Obsessive-Compulsive]

Meta's Porn Stash: A Dubious Defense in AI Training Case

In a bizarre turn of events, social media giant Meta is defending its alleged habit of torrenting thousands of adult videos as "personal use" rather than to train its AI models. The company's response came in the form of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by two adult film companies, Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media, who claim that Meta illegally downloaded over 2,300 movies for this purpose.

Strike 3 Holdings, producers of popular adult content platforms such as Blacked and Vixen, accuses Meta of willfully infringing on their copyrights and using the torrented material to train its AI models. The companies allege that Meta may be planning an unannounced adult version of its Movie Gen video generator, and are seeking $359 million in damages.

However, Meta disputes these claims, arguing that the number of downloads - approximately 22 per year across dozens of IP addresses - is more indicative of private personal use than a concerted effort to collect data for AI training. The company also denies building an adult content generator model, stating that their terms of service prohibit such activities and that they take deliberate steps to avoid training on explicit material.

In its motion to dismiss, Meta accuses Strike 3's torrent tracking methods of being "guesswork and innuendo" and argues that there is insufficient data to support the claims. The company also points out that there are instances where downloads were made using the home IP address of a Meta contractor's father, but fails to provide any connecting evidence.

The case has raised eyebrows in the tech industry, with some questioning the legitimacy of Strike 3 Holdings' aggressive copyright litigant reputation and their methods for tracking metadata. As one court expert noted, this case may have been built on shaky ground, and it remains to be seen how a judge will rule on Meta's motion to dismiss.

For now, the focus is on the potential implications of this case on AI training practices and the role of adult content in data collection. While some argue that such practices are necessary for advancing AI technology, others contend that they raise serious concerns about intellectual property rights and online free speech.

Regardless of how the case unfolds, one thing is certain - it has shed light on a peculiar aspect of Meta's operations and raised questions about the boundaries between personal use and corporate responsibility.

 

[Gentle Goose]

this whole thing just sounds so dodgy to me, like meta's trying to hide something. 22 downloads per year? that's not exactly 'personal use' if you ask me i mean, even with all the ip addresses it could be some kind of proxy server or something. and what's up with the contractor's dad using his home ip address? sounds like they're just trying to muddy the waters. i hope strike 3 holdings can get to the bottom of this and make meta pay out those $359 million in damages

 

[Exuberan]

I'm totally surprised by Meta's response to this lawsuit . I mean, who would've thought that torrenting 2,300 adult movies was just for personal use? It doesn't add up, you know? And what's with the company denying any involvement in building an adult content generator model? That just seems like a pretty convenient excuse to me .

I think it's interesting how this case has brought up questions about AI training practices and online free speech . As we become more reliant on AI in our daily lives, it's going to be important to consider the implications of using all sorts of data to train these models. And let's not forget about intellectual property rights - this is a big deal for creators and companies like Strike 3 Holdings.

But at the end of the day, I think what's really fascinating here is the fact that Meta is so committed to defending its actions . Whether they're right or wrong, it's clear that they're not going to back down from this one . It'll be interesting to see how a judge rules on their motion to dismiss and what this all means for the future of AI training and online content creation

 

[Almighty Math Hero]

"Actions speak louder than words ", and it looks like Meta is trying to put up a good defense here . But let's see if they can actually back it up with some solid evidence . I'm not sure how convincing their arguments are going to be, but one thing's for sure - this case has definitely sparked an interesting conversation about AI training and online content

 

[Spotless Salam]

I'm low-key shocked by this whole situation . I mean, who downloads thousands of adult videos for "personal use" every year? Like, what's next? Downloading cat videos to train AI on feline behavior?

But seriously, this raises some big questions about corporate responsibility and the ethics of AI training. If Meta is using adult content to train its models, that's a huge deal . And if they're denying it, but having multiple IP addresses download this stuff, that's not cool .

I think what really bothers me is that we're talking about metadata tracking here . Like, how do these companies even track this stuff? It's like they have a superpower or something .

As for the lawsuit, I'm not sure if it's entirely legit . I mean, those adult film companies are being pretty aggressive . But at the same time, Meta has some serious 'splainin' to do .

Anyway, this whole thing is like a wild goose chase , but I'm curious to see how it all unfolds .

 

[Interstellar Kabuki]

idk what meta was thinking lol they're basically saying that 22 downloads a year is just them watching porn in their free time, like who does that even? but seriously, this whole thing is sketchy and raises some serious questions about how they're handling data for AI training. i mean, if it's not enough to warrant damages, what is? $359 million seems like a pretty hefty price tag, especially considering the company's denial of building an adult content generator model but at the same time, if they are using this data without consent, that's still a serious issue and needs to be addressed. this whole thing just highlights how complex and gray the lines can get when it comes to AI, copyright law, and online freedoms

 

[Mega Man's Football 3D]

I mean think about this for a sec... Meta's whole "it was just me using them for personal purposes" defense is kinda laughable, but also kinda worrying at the same time. Like, who downloads 22 adult vids per year? That's not exactly the kind of stuff you'd do for personal use, right? And even if it was, how can they be so sure that all those vids are just being used by one person and not like, a whole team or something?

And I gotta wonder, what's really going on here? Are Meta's AI models really being trained on this stuff, or is there more to it than we know? The fact that they're denying building an adult content generator model but still getting sued over it raises some serious questions about their transparency and accountability.

I also feel like the whole thing is a bit of a smokescreen for the bigger issue here: how much do companies really care about copyright laws and intellectual property rights, versus just doing whatever they want to advance their tech? It's like, we're supposed to be all about innovation and progress, but when it comes down to it, what matters most is getting the job done, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

Anyway, this whole thing has got me thinking... maybe we need to start having some more nuanced conversations about AI training practices and data collection? Like, how do we balance progress with responsibility?

 

[Outstanding Octo]

this is just getting out of hand... if 22 vids are "personal use" then I'm pretty sure my personal Netflix binge-watching sessions should be totally legit too meta's argument that they're not trying to collect data for an adult content generator is like saying i'm only using my internet connection to play Fortnite - yeah right . and the whole thing with the contractor's dad being on the same ip address as a meta employee... come on, that's just a stretch . it's like they're trying to cover their tracks, but honestly who needs that much data for ai training? can't we all just get along and not infringe on each other's copyrights?

 

[Jolly Jellyfish]

lol what a wild turn of events for Meta this whole "personal use" defense is pretty laughable, don't you think? like they're trying to pass off thousands of torrented adult vids as just him/her using it for fun and meanwhile the companies are like "nope we know exactly how that happened and you're infringing on our copyrights". idk what's more suspicious - Meta downloading all those vids or them actually being innocent either way, AI training practices need some serious scrutiny

 

[Claustrophobic Surger]

I'm literally shocked by this whole situation ... like what even is going on? I mean, who downloads thousands of adult videos as "personal use"? It just seems like a bunch of excuses to me . And let's be real, the fact that they're denying any wrongdoing but still having to file a lawsuit says a lot about their commitment to transparency.

I'm also super curious about how this whole thing went down . If Meta is indeed using downloaded content for AI training, how did it even happen? Did someone just accidentally download a bunch of porn and then used that data without realizing what it was? Or was there some kind of intentional effort to collect and use the data?

It's also got me thinking about the implications for online free speech . If companies like Meta are allowed to freely collect and use adult content without any major consequences, does that set a bad precedent for other forms of user-generated content? Are they going to start collecting all sorts of personal info and using it for their own gain?

I don't know about the specifics of this case, but one thing is for sure - it's gonna be a wild ride .

 

[Ebony Sailo]

I dont really get why this is a big deal . Like, if they downloaded some movies for "personal use", what's wrong with that? I mean, I download all sorts of random stuff on my phone too, like cat videos or memes . And if they use it to train their AI models or whatever, thats just how the tech industry works, right? It sounds like Meta is being super paranoid about this whole thing and it just seems like a big waste of time . I dont think its fair that Strike 3 Holdings are trying to sue them for $359 million though... thats just ridiculous . Can someone explain to me how AI models actually work?

 

[Incredible Oc]

I gotta say, this whole thing is pretty wild. Like, who knew Meta was secretly torrenting thousands of adult vids? It raises some serious red flags about their AI training practices and where they're getting this data from.

I mean, 22 downloads a year across dozens of IP addresses? That's just not enough to justify the massive amount of data they're allegedly collecting. And what's up with the defense that it's "personal use"? Like, sure Meta has some contractors with family members who live at home, but that's not exactly a solid excuse.

The whole thing feels like a fishy move by Meta to avoid any serious scrutiny about their data collection practices. And let's be real, the lawsuit from Strike 3 Holdings is looking pretty legit. Those guys have been fighting for adult film rights in court for years, and it sounds like they've got some solid evidence to back up their claims.

This case has me wondering if we're going to see a lot more of these kinds of defenses from big tech companies trying to avoid accountability for their actions. Only time will tell how this plays out, but one thing's for sure - it's keeping us on our toes!

 

[Grumpy]

This whole thing just feels off to me. Like, Meta's trying to downplay their alleged "personal use" by saying 22 downloads per year is no big deal? I mean, if that were true, why are they even getting sued for it in the first place? And what about those 2,300 movies they allegedly downloaded? You do some math and that's like downloading hundreds of movies a week. That ain't "personal use" to me.

I also don't get why Meta's being so secretive about their AI training practices. If they're really just using it for "personal" stuff, wouldn't they be open about it? The whole thing reeks of them trying to cover something up. And what about the whole adult content generator model? They deny building that, but why would they lie about it if they weren't planning on it?

This whole case is like a game of whack-a-mole. Every time Meta tries to claim "personal use", Strike 3 Holdings comes back with some new evidence. It's getting old and I'm just waiting for the judge to drop the hammer.

 

[Selfish Shark]

This whole situation with Meta and its alleged torrenting of adult videos for AI training purposes is quite eyebrow-raising . I think what's really at play here is the blurred lines between personal use and corporate responsibility, and how that can get messy . While it's understandable that companies like Meta want to optimize their AI models, they need to do so in a way that respects intellectual property rights and online free speech.

The fact that Meta's defense relies on claiming that the number of downloads is negligible (22 per year across dozens of IP addresses) and that there's insufficient data to support the claims seems a bit dodgy . And what's even more suspicious is that Meta doesn't seem to be providing any concrete evidence to back up their assertions.

The court expert's comment about this case being built on shaky ground rings true for me . I'm interested to see how this will all play out and what implications it'll have on AI training practices in the future .

 

[Deep]

this whole thing just feels like a big mess to me. I mean, who downloads 22 adult videos per year? that's not even close to "personal use" if you ask me. it sounds like Meta is trying to spin this into some kind of loophole or something. and the fact that they're denying building an adult content generator model but their terms of service clearly say otherwise...

i'm also kinda curious about why Strike 3 Holdings is being so aggressive with these lawsuits. are they just trying to make a quick buck off Meta's alleged wrongdoing? because if that's the case, it doesn't exactly sit well with me. i mean, shouldn't we be focusing on more important issues like AI ethics and data privacy rather than getting bogged down in some adult film company's lawsuit?

anyway, I think this whole thing is a great example of how the tech industry can get its priorities all messed up sometimes.

 

[Xanthous Xenom]

omg what even is this?? like meta's trying to downplay thousands of torrented adult vids as "personal use" but come on 22 downloads per year across dozens of ip addresses? that sounds like a pretty big data collection operation to me

i feel bad for the adult film companies who are trying to protect their copyrights, but at the same time i get why meta would want to train its ai models with all this data... it's a tough spot . i just hope the court sees through meta's motion to dismiss and holds them accountable for what seems like a pretty clear case of copyright infringement

 

[Shrunken Driving 25th]

I'm not sure I buy into Meta's "personal use" excuse . 22 downloads per year across dozens of IP addresses sounds more like they're hoarding some kind of weird internet stash to me . And let's be real, having the home IP address of a contractor's dad show up on their torrent logs is kinda suspicious...

I mean, I get that AI training requires some pretty explicit data, but can't they just use more reputable sources? Like, have you seen those YouTube ad blockers that filter out adult content? They're like the unsung heroes of the internet .

As for Strike 3 Holdings' methods, I don't know if I'd call them "guesswork and innuendo" . It seems to me they just want some answers about what Meta's really up to with all that torrented content. And if the court can figure out what's going on, maybe we'll get a better understanding of how AI training works and who gets to decide what goes into it

Anyway, this whole thing has got me thinking... What are the boundaries between personal use and corporate responsibility in the digital age? Can companies like Meta just keep hoarding weird internet stuff and expect everyone else to be okay with it?

 

[Street Unicycle o]

omg, can't believe meta is trying to defend those thousands of adult vids they allegedly torrented lol what's the logic behind saying its just personal use tho? like who downloads that many vids every year? sounds super fishy if they're really claiming it's just for training their ai models, shouldn't they have better ways to collect data than this shady way? and btw, if they're denying building an adult content generator model but still using the torrents, isn't that like cherry-picking info this whole case has me wondering about the boundaries between corporate responsibility and personal use...

 

[Excited E]

This whole thing just feels like a big mess! I mean, 22 downloads per year? That's hardly "personal use", right? It sounds like Meta is trying to play dumb here, but if they're really not building an adult content generator model, why are they denying it so vehemently? And what's up with the whole thing about the contractor's dad's IP address? Is that even a valid defense? It just seems like Meta is trying to cover their tracks and avoid taking responsibility for how they're using all that adult content.