110

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  1. Shorter and more reasonable copyright lengths would make this a moot point because then there would sufficient literature in the public domain to pull from.

  2. These kind of charges are what put the Pirate Bay admins in prison and caused Aaron Swartz to kill himself because of a threat of lifetime in prison. The claim that they did this either with the goal of profit or actually successful profit and that this was a serious crime. Neither TPB or Swartz at that point in time had ever moved as much data as Meta has for these claims, nor did they ever have the profit or possibility of profit Meta aims to make from their AI offerings.

  3. Now Meta is claiming they've profited so hard you can't possibly hold them accountable.

It will be the biggest "fuck you" in history to anyone ever hit with civil charges for piracy in the early 2000s, let alone the TPB admins and Swartz, if they let this go. Which means they probably will because in America, apparently if you crime hard enough and big enough they stop putting you in prison and start patting you on the back and calling it good business sense.

[-] Airfried@piefed.social 11 points 1 month ago

in America, apparently if you crime hard enough and big enough they stop putting you in prison and start patting you on the back and calling it good business sense.

There's a story about Alexander the great capturing a pirate and scolding him for raiding villages along the coast line. Alexander asked if the pirate feels ashamed and wants to beg for forgiveness. However, the pirate had something else to say. He said that Alexander was doing the same thing, but infinitely worse. The only difference was that Alexander called himself king and plundered entire lands while the pirate only raided small villages. The pirate reminded Alexander of the many lives he had destroyed in his conquest. So the pirate's only crime was not to be the biggest baddie in the hood, so to speak.

Alexander replied by stating that the title of king forces his hand and that he couldn't just stop what he was doing. The pirate on the other hand was just an individual who could easily change course. And so Alexander set the pirate free, stating that he himself will start changing his own ways right there and then if the pirate makes a fresh start first.

I don't know if there is any truth to this but it's a fable often used to explain how legitimacy changes the perception people have of wrong doing and heroism on a fundamental level. Alexander's reply sounds like an excuse and I think that's on purpose. The pirate outwitted him in the end by stating a basic truth.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8

This is where I first remember hearing this tale, in this old Schoolhouse Rock parody that was in protest of the War in Iraq.

[-] artifex@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago

in America, apparently if you crime hard enough and big enough they stop putting you in prison and start patting you on the back and calling it good business sense.

If you owe the bank $100 you have a problem. If you owe the bank $100,000,000, the bank has a problem.

[-] discocactus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

If heaven and hell are real I hope God and Satan give Swartz a sabbatical so he can go torture Zuck for a while, periodically.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 month ago

I absolutely love the fact that all these companies are laying the legal groundwork to destroy intellectual property rights altogether. If they win enough of these cases, then every pirate on the open seas sails under a flag of amnesty.

[-] artifex@piefed.social 20 points 1 month ago

No, I expect they’ll be more like “rules for thee but not for me”

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 20 points 1 month ago

So I can use pirated media to train my AI (Actual Intelligence), right?

[-] artifex@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago

As long as you’re rich enough to hire your own army of lawyers, probably.

That said, it seems like when you’re rich enough to hire your own army of lawyers you can pretty much do whatever you want.

[-] Kailn@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 month ago

Well, that doesn't sound civil or lawful at all and more like kindoms of the dark ages degree of "rules" where it doesn't apply to a choosen few.

If Meta and other bigcorps that support the US goverment get the special "avoid-judgment" card and you face punishment then there's no law, only bigotry.

That would encourage individuals and small groups to keep their activites a secret (go anonymous) and break the law whenever they can,
because the "king and his followers" don't follow their own "rules".

The US is not only getting dystopian, they're commiting primitive mistakes.

[-] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Should make all journal publications fair use.

[-] ptu@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

If only US were going for a win in that AI

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So we can pirate books as well as long as we aren't able to reproduce them verbatim from memory as well?

Judge Vince Chhabria either accepts whatever bribes and offers he's probably getting offered and sides with Meta, or it will eventually go on to the Supreme Court where they most definitely will. That's the part of this that will work the most under an administration of no accountability.

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Tell the judge you are training a neural network... it just happens to also be you.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

Classic "the end justifies the means" (bad) defense. If ISPs can send letter for torrenting, and Facebook torrented a lot, Facebook deserves a fair punishment.

[-] GameOverFlow@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Not deserves, needs.

[-] Archer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

lol it would be hilarious if they could order Facebook disconnected from the Internet like a pleb hit with a copyright complaint

[-] _Nico198X_@piefed.europe.pub 2 points 1 month ago

There are no rules. Everything is made up to their convenience.

[-] Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus 2 points 1 month ago

Yup, that's what I'm doing with all those audiobooks I torrented. Helping the US maintain the lead in AI 😂

[-] discocactus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Unironically may become a legitimate defense. Although in that case, indiscriminately bombing gas stations in your town and extorting their owners should also be allowed but...

[-] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

So meta gets to claim fair use with pure digital duplication, but archive.org doesn't when they scan physical copies of books and only lend out the same number of copies as they own in warehouses. That's piracy.

Got it.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Arguing that training models isn't fair use us going to be a massive uphill battle, it's basically reading the book but with a computer. It's not actually a big deal to people, unless you hold the copyright to a ton of works and want to get a percentage of all the AI income these companies have made.

Torrenting the books is likely absolutely copyright infringement, but that has relatively low payout compared to the money these companies are getting for their models. The training being fair use means that rights holders can't try to take any money from the model's use. The statutory limits for infringement even at per work levels aren't significant compared to the legal cost of proving it happened.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] lmmarsano@group.lt 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[-] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

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

[-] lmmarsano@group.lt 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
110 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

84069 readers
577 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