this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
600 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

82460 readers
3968 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

By this logic i should be able to copy paste Moby Dick and change all instances of the name to Mopy Dick and now it's output no longer matches the imput. I'm about to be the next Stefani King.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 points 12 hours ago

The woman in white fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed. The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts.

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Right. Maybe you should email this to facebook...

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt -1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] lmmarsano@group.lt -1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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 6 points 11 hours 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?