Even better, they used a corporate network. The plaintiff is alleging that this was actually for work, since they were an executive at Reality Labs (home of Oculus.) They contend that the executive was testing VR porn as part of their job.
This reminds me of a stand up comedy routine about people being bad at hiding their porn collections because their brain doesn't work right when they are horny.
I'd bet that executive's VR headset is tied to a facebook account and there are logs of everything that was watched and when along with data collected from the device and the environment it was in. The discovery from this lawsuit could be very telling.
However, Strike 3 argues that this is no ordinary home pirate, using the timing of the downloads as evidence. On March 20, 2025, the porn producer’s general counsel first emailed Meta’s lawyers with forensic evidence of BitTorrent activity on the tech giant’s corporate IP addresses.
“Just hours later, Strike 3 first recorded BitTorrent infringement on John Doe’s residential IP Address,” the motion reads.
“This may suggest that Meta desired to shift infringing activity to this hidden residential IP Address in order to prevent further detection,”
Seems like there are 2 different reads to that. (a) is like they say, and Meta was using porn for AI training or something else official. Or (b) that he was personally downloading porn either at the office or a corp VPN and was told to stop by their corp It folks..
From TFA: "Strike 3 suggests the downloads are consistent with work to make the headset compatible with adult films"
> The company logged all BitTorrent activity detected from the executive’s connection, which was nearly 20,000 files.
> This includes VR adult titles made for Meta’s Quest headset. Strike 3 suggests the downloads are consistent with work to make the headset compatible with adult films.
> As recently as August 25, Strike 3 says it recorded more than 150 daily downloads, from multi-language “Mega Packs” of TV shows, movies, software and books to what it describes as AI-generated pornography and VR adult films. That included nearly a dozen of its own titles.
Why was torrenting needed anyway? Meta could’ve easily reached out to adult media providers to work on VR headset compatibility under an NDA. Or hired a third party contractor to do it.
It’s much more expensive. You as a consumer can buy a movie for $5 with a DVD on sale. But tos generally don’t include commercial activities. If you reach out to the film studio to get their permission, they can charge you anywhere from $10K to $1M+ for same thing.
And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content but they generally wouldn’t want to set a precedent where they paid everyone.
Meta wants to make their service compatible with meta vr headsets. They don’t require ongoing access to the content. The media vendor would also benefit from this, so an agreement is in the interest of both parties.
> But tos generally don’t include commercial activities
I can't think of any ToS that prohibit a device manufacturer from testing whether the content plays on their device. That's literally why anyone buys content - to play it on their device.
How would they enforce those anyway? And how would being sued for that be worse than being sued for torrenting?
Because that would have been the right way to do it, and if they do it right even once, they can't say "We DiDn'T KnOw aNy BeTtEr" or whatever excuse they fall back to.
Seems plausible. The material contains many hours of highly detailed human interaction plus I don’t expect Meta would have moral objections given their track record.
The potential output. You train on movies and animation and you get a model that can
- produce your own movies/animation
- identity movies/animation from context
- identify actors/characters and cross-reference them in other works
You apply these parallels with porn, a more anonymous and intimate setting, and you can see how the kinds of results can be more morally dubious. And that's before getting into if the kinds of porn being trained on is even legal in your given jurisdiction.
> "In short, this is a lot for one person to torrent on an average day, particularly one who has a demanding job," Strike 3 writes. The company believes the pattern makes more sense as AI training data or research.
I hope they drag Meta hard and get every penny for this.
Yeah but then if you're trying to replicate Spotify functionality, then you'd need a lot of "dark" tracks so that you could listen to the ones you want to listen on a whim.
I've seen anti terrorist police appear at offices because certain executives were trading so much porn they assumed there must be messages hidden in it.
The noise has always been about the UN private network which is apparently absolutely full of anything you might ever want.
So the 'anti terrorist police" are monitoring porn transfer quantity specifically because they think messages might be hidden in multi-terabyte media transfers? What part of this story is even adjacent to reality.
The second read, (b), is irrelevant with respect to Meta's liability for the downloads before the "executive" switched to a residential IP, i.e., the downloads that prompted the email to Meta's lawyers
1 - How are people torrenting and not using a VPN? 2 - How are judges still allowing this business model of sharing files then trying to shake down people that download them?
Are you confusing Tor with a VPN? With a VPN the IP is a commercial server run by the VPN provider, and there's usually just one hop (you run an encrypted connection between yourself and the VPN provider that all your traffic is routed over, then the VPN provider makes outgoing connections on your behalf). You're relying on the VPN provider's promise to not log customer connections, but if they are honest, all connections seem like they're coming from the VPN provider and aren't traceable beyond that.
With Tor, you connect to a random Tor node (which may be another residential computer), which connects to a node in the middle, which connects to an exit node, which forwards your requests on to their final destination. All connections look like they come from the exit node, which might be someone's residential IP.
> With a VPN the IP is a commercial server run by the VPN provider
That is not a requirement... anyone can run VPN server software on a computer they control, whether it's on a personal/residential connection or a VPS/VM you rent, or something else. Many privacy-conscious people do this regularly whether or not a commercial VPN provider is involved.
Sure, that's plausible... a facebook exec so dumb that they're using their personal ISP connection to run a VPN for others, and even dumber that they don't notice or don't care about a massive amount of torrent traffic through that VPN.
It's not really a VPN if it's not a commercial, no-log VPN. Because it's not really private.
When I use the VPN, I am connecting to an endpoint that 40 other people are also connected to. Did I download that file, or did one of the other 39 download it? Even the VPN provider can't tell... they keep no logs. I wouldn't want to use the VPN to phone in some bomb threat, that wouldn't even hide me 5 minutes from the feebs, but it's like an impenetrable shield for copyright troll lawyers. Smooth sailing for the last 13 or 14 years, for $3/month.
I'd be shocked if anyone in the United States is still downloading stuff without a VPN. There are entire countries that don't have to worry about it, but none in Europe or North America where that is the case.
What cases are you talking about?
My general understanding is that if the VPN provider does not keep any logs, all that is left is timing / bandwidth correlation. If the endpoint you are connecting to isn't compromised and you connect to a high traffic node wouldn't this be essentially impossible?
Unless you do some user error stuff like logging into accounts tied to your public persona?
but basically the point is, you are indellibly linking your machine to a service.
The difference between that an normal internet is because of NAT, you can argue that at home it wasn't your machine, it was someone else on the network.
Very dumb but what if he claims he was only using to train an AI model, what was that ruling on copyright material being ok to training AI models on. Would this hold up in court or not?
I don't know a single company where an executive would be downloading training data themselves.
The only exception would be a very small startup, which isn't the case here, or all IT, admin and engineering staff told the company they aren't doing anything illegal for Zuckerberg. That's not going to happen at Meta either.
Well now I'm hoping this makes it to a courtroom, so that the plaintiffs can ask, on the court record and under penalty of perjury, exactly what he was using that quantity of pornography for. How often, when, and so on. It would be a nice sociological study of what an executive does all day.
Rulings have said that reproduction of AI models which were trained on copyrighted material are not violating the copyright on those materials. The initial copying of those materials without paying is illegal regardless. You still have to buy or otherwise legally view a copy of the book/movie/photo to train your model on it.
Strike 3, the studio involved, files more lawsuits in the USA than anyone else. I think that makes them the biggest Copyright Trolls of all time. They run their own BitTorrent monitoring operation.
Far from it. "What if [inflammatory proposition presented without evidence]?" is not contributory to truth-seeking.
As Hitchens' Razor puts it: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." u/petesergeant was pointing that out to you, fairly gently if slightly obliquely.
The idea that you'd get notified of infringing activity on corporate network and deliberately shift to residential without changing the activity is crazy. Like, it's hard to believe anyone is that dumb.
> Meta also flags a contradiction in Strike 3’s theory that downloads were switched to the home connection hours after the March 2025 warning. Strike 3’s own complaint alleges that Meta’s “off-infra” activity started in 2018, and that downloads on corporate IP addresses continued long after the notice.
Oh. The connection is maybe more tenuous than Strike 3 claims.
I'm torn on this. While I can imagine Meta being morally corrupt enough to do all of this, I just can't imagine an exec taking on personal liability for the company.
"Hey... we need to improve our porn detection AI... but we want to avoid paying for all that porn... is anyone open to taking on some personal liability for a nice bonus this year"
> As recently as August 25, Strike 3 says it recorded more than 150 daily downloads, from multi-language “Mega Packs” of TV shows, movies, software and books to what it describes as AI-generated pornography and VR adult films. That included nearly a dozen of its own titles.
It sounds like this person/IP was just downloading a ton of different content, of which these VR videos were are part of.
Doesn't that water down their complaint a bit? If they are trying to say they moved to a residential IP to specifically download VR content for training data, why are they also downloading unrelated eBook and other media? Seems like VR content made up a pretty small percentage of overall downloaded content.
133 comments
[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] thread“Just hours later, Strike 3 first recorded BitTorrent infringement on John Doe’s residential IP Address,” the motion reads.
“This may suggest that Meta desired to shift infringing activity to this hidden residential IP Address in order to prevent further detection,”
Seems like there are 2 different reads to that. (a) is like they say, and Meta was using porn for AI training or something else official. Or (b) that he was personally downloading porn either at the office or a corp VPN and was told to stop by their corp It folks..
> The company logged all BitTorrent activity detected from the executive’s connection, which was nearly 20,000 files.
> This includes VR adult titles made for Meta’s Quest headset. Strike 3 suggests the downloads are consistent with work to make the headset compatible with adult films.
> As recently as August 25, Strike 3 says it recorded more than 150 daily downloads, from multi-language “Mega Packs” of TV shows, movies, software and books to what it describes as AI-generated pornography and VR adult films. That included nearly a dozen of its own titles.
And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content but they generally wouldn’t want to set a precedent where they paid everyone.
Are you? I don’t understand why you think this. It seems like the only payments in this area are settlements after the fact.
Counterexamples welcome.
I can't think of any ToS that prohibit a device manufacturer from testing whether the content plays on their device. That's literally why anyone buys content - to play it on their device.
How would they enforce those anyway? And how would being sued for that be worse than being sued for torrenting?
Seems plausible. The material contains many hours of highly detailed human interaction plus I don’t expect Meta would have moral objections given their track record.
- produce your own movies/animation - identity movies/animation from context - identify actors/characters and cross-reference them in other works
You apply these parallels with porn, a more anonymous and intimate setting, and you can see how the kinds of results can be more morally dubious. And that's before getting into if the kinds of porn being trained on is even legal in your given jurisdiction.
I hope they drag Meta hard and get every penny for this.
I wonder how much porn you have to personally download to be considered prolific.
EDIT: "Reality Labs executive downloaded nearly 20,000 files at his home for work purposes"
Yeah, you can't consume that much porn for your own amusement.
and I assume this was just for content from Reality Labs. god knows how much other torrenting was done outside of Reality Labs IP
You could run them in parallel, like a Zoom or Teams mtg, but with each square a different movie.
Would be more entertaining than the next status mtg.
The noise has always been about the UN private network which is apparently absolutely full of anything you might ever want.
Sir, I accept your wager.
With Tor, you connect to a random Tor node (which may be another residential computer), which connects to a node in the middle, which connects to an exit node, which forwards your requests on to their final destination. All connections look like they come from the exit node, which might be someone's residential IP.
No
> With a VPN the IP is a commercial server run by the VPN provider
That is not a requirement... anyone can run VPN server software on a computer they control, whether it's on a personal/residential connection or a VPS/VM you rent, or something else. Many privacy-conscious people do this regularly whether or not a commercial VPN provider is involved.
It's not really a VPN if it's not a commercial, no-log VPN. Because it's not really private.
because in some cases VPNs tie to you neatly to an action better than just home internet.
With a VPN, you have much less deniability, because its tied to a device often with a username and password.
I'd be shocked if anyone in the United States is still downloading stuff without a VPN. There are entire countries that don't have to worry about it, but none in Europe or North America where that is the case.
Thats an assumption. the source is out of date https://vpntesting.com/no-logs/
but basically the point is, you are indellibly linking your machine to a service.
The difference between that an normal internet is because of NAT, you can argue that at home it wasn't your machine, it was someone else on the network.
The only exception would be a very small startup, which isn't the case here, or all IT, admin and engineering staff told the company they aren't doing anything illegal for Zuckerberg. That's not going to happen at Meta either.
Maybe an ethically bankrupt company with a "move fast and break things" ethos looking for exactly the plausible deniability your comment hints at?
Well now I'm hoping this makes it to a courtroom, so that the plaintiffs can ask, on the court record and under penalty of perjury, exactly what he was using that quantity of pornography for. How often, when, and so on. It would be a nice sociological study of what an executive does all day.
If the materials were publicly available on a site and scraped? Fair use.
If they were distributed illegally and acquired through that distribution? Cooked.
If you scraped it AND saved it? Cooked.
I am hard pressed to believe that this was for the exec.
what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
I just wnat to know what bandwidth this exec has at his house. I want it.
This was mostly a hoarding thing. Hoarders gonna hoard.
It's about having the library, not about reading the books.
Let me break out the world's tiniest violin for them.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o...
Your ethics shouldn't be dictated by US copyright law
I think that’s more hopium ethics.
Corporate lawlessness has no good outcomes for humans.
As Hitchens' Razor puts it: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." u/petesergeant was pointing that out to you, fairly gently if slightly obliquely.
Does this site not have a policy against incivility?
there is 0 evidence for either discussion in the article
> Meta also flags a contradiction in Strike 3’s theory that downloads were switched to the home connection hours after the March 2025 warning. Strike 3’s own complaint alleges that Meta’s “off-infra” activity started in 2018, and that downloads on corporate IP addresses continued long after the notice.
Oh. The connection is maybe more tenuous than Strike 3 claims.
Yeah they seem to be following the time-honored legal strategy of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks
I’m eagerly awaiting discovery.
"Hey... we need to improve our porn detection AI... but we want to avoid paying for all that porn... is anyone open to taking on some personal liability for a nice bonus this year"
I'm just saying... maybe...
It sounds like this person/IP was just downloading a ton of different content, of which these VR videos were are part of.
Doesn't that water down their complaint a bit? If they are trying to say they moved to a residential IP to specifically download VR content for training data, why are they also downloading unrelated eBook and other media? Seems like VR content made up a pretty small percentage of overall downloaded content.
So is it a Reality Labs executive or a Meta executive? Is the headline lying?