If, like me, you just wanted to know what the Bob Dylan defence, is:

“Meta’s response in this case seems to be that a powerful technology corporation should not be held to the same standard as everyone else for illegal conduct.”

The authors mocked Meta for raising what they call “the Bob Dylan defense” of its torrenting, citing song lyrics from “Sweetheart Like You” that say, “Steal a little and they throw you in jail / Steal a lot and they make you king.”

Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”

Is there existing case law for what making something “available” means? If I say “Alright, I’ll send you this book if you want, just ask,” have I made it available? What if, when someone asks, I don’t actually send them anything?

I’m thinking outside of contexts of piracy and torrenting, to be clear - like if a software license requires you to make any changed versions available to anyone who uses the software. Can you say it’s available if your distribution platform is configured to prevent downloads?

If not, then why would it be any different when torrenting?

Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.

The argument that a copyrighted work has been reproduced when “made available,” when “made available” has such a low bar is also perplexing. If I post an ad on Craigslist for the sale of the Mona Lisa, have I reproduced it?

What if it was for a car?

I’m selling a brand new 2026 Alfa Romeo 4E, DM me your offers. I’ve now “reproduced” a car - come at me, MPAA.

even if Meta limited seeding when the downloads were completed, as the company claims it does

That’s the real crime! Not even reaching for the 1 ratio!

To cover its tracks, the social media company allegedly deviated from usual practices and attempted to conceal the torrenting by using Amazon Web Services.

The audacity lmao