> “By downloading through the bit torrent protocol, Meta knew it was facilitating further copyright infringement by acting as a distribution point for other users of pirated books,” the amended complaint notes.
> “Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”
It is possible to (ab)use the bittorrent ecosystem and download without sharing at all. I don't know if this is what Meta did, or not.
However since this is a civil case they don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Meta seeded torrents. If they did use torrents the presumption would be that they used a regular bittorrent client with regular settings, and it would be on Meta to show they didn't do that.
Meta can show this with testimony. (Employee: “I opened the settings and disabled sharing.”)
This is a difficult theory for the plaintiffs to prevail on, since they would have no evidence of their own to contradict Meta’s testimony to keep the issue in play. Which is why they’re asking for client logs - and good luck with that.
I was (partly) responsible for obtaining recordings for a Very Large Online Streaming Service(tm). Sometimes the studios would send us trucks filled with CDs. Sometimes they didn't have any easily accessible copies of the albums and would tell us to just "get it however..." which often involved SoulSeek, Limewire, etc.
We were not smart about it. We just found the stuff and hit download. To the point where there were days the corp Internet was saturated from too many P2P clients running.
> “Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”
It is possible to (ab)use the bittorrent ecosystem and download without sharing at all. I don't know if this is what Meta did, or not.