In order to help train its AI models, Meta (and others) have been using pirated versions of copyrighted books, without the consent of authors or publishers. The company behind Facebook and Instagram faces an ongoing class-action lawsuit brought by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, and one in which it has already scored a major (and surprising) victory: The Californian court concluded last year that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM did qualify as fair use.

You’d think this case would be as open-and-shut as it gets, but never underestimate an army of high-priced lawyers. Meta has now come up with the striking defense that uploading pirated books to strangers via BitTorrent qualifies as fair use. It further goes on to claim that this is double good, because it has helped establish the United States’ leading position in the AI field.

Meta further argues that every author involved in the class-action has admitted they are unaware of any Llama LLM output that directly reproduces content from their books. It says if the authors cannot provide evidence of such infringing output or damage to sales, then this lawsuit is not about protecting their books but arguing against the training process itself (which the court has ruled is fair use).

Judge Vince Chhabria now has to decide whether to allow this defense, a decision that will have consequences for not only this but many other AI lawsuits involving things like shadow libraries. The BitTorrent uploading and distribution claims are the last element of this particular lawsuit, which has been rumbling on for three years now, to be settled.

  • lmmarsano@group.lt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 minutes ago

    Moby Dick

    Public domain.

    You could also try understanding the law

    §107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    with particular attention to factors 1 (especially transformation) & 4.

    If that’s not for you, though, then you should definitely try that with a copyright work (Disney?) & report back on how that went.

    • ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Meta have paid the copyright fee but uploaded material from Ann’s Archive because it wasn’t financially feasible to scan in each book individually.

      Fair use is irrelevant.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        48 minutes ago

        Meta have paid the copyright fee

        Lol, no. “Copyright fees” are what you pay your government in order to register your copyright or keep your copyright registration active.

        Or to put it another way, copyright fees have fuck all to do with fair use.

        You’re trying make it sound as though Meta obtained consent and paid authors for their own work when in fact, Meta obtained consent from no one, and paid nothing at all to anyone, in exchange for the use of their works.

        Even a light skim of the attached article would have told you that much. What do you think a copyright suit is about?

        “Meta have paid the copyright fee,” lol. That’s some r/ConfidentlyIncorrect shit right there. Why did you even bother?

      • lmmarsano@group.lt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Don’t need to: their lawyers understood the law & lawyered successfully so far.

          • lmmarsano@group.lt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 minutes ago

            Are you referring to yourself by claiming your ignorance somehow matches legal expertise? Cool ad hominem, by the way: fallacies, blame-shifting when you can’t back claims with credible evidence, & self-indulgent vanity are the hallmarks of trolls. Way to out yourself, buddy. 😄