95

A group of prominent intellectual property law professors has weighed in on the high-stakes AI copyright battle between several authors and Meta. In an amicus brief, the scholars argue that using copyrighted content as training data can be considered fair use under U.S. copyright law, if the goal is to create a new and 'transformative' tool. This suggests that fair use could potentially apply to Meta's training process, even if the underlying data was obtained without permission.

This case has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used BitTorrent to download archives of pirated books to use as training material. Notably, the authors argue that, in addition to copying pirated books from Anna’s Archive and Z-Library, in the same process Meta also uploaded pirated books to third parties.

This week, a group of IP Law Professors submitted a “friend of the court” or amicus brief, backing Meta’s fair use defense. The professors, including scholars from Harvard, Emory, Boston University, and Santa Clara University, have different views on the impact of AI but are united in their copyright stance.

The brief stresses that Meta’s alleged use of pirated books as training data can be considered fair use. The source of the training data is not determinative, as long as it’s used to create a new and transformative product, they argue.

“The case law, including binding circuit precedent, holds that internal copying, made in the course of creating new knowledge, is a transformative use that is heavily favored by fair use doctrine,” the professors write.

The professors’ argument is centered around the concept of “transformative use.” They note that using books outside their original ‘reading’ purpose to create an AI model, transforms the purpose of the use. This internal copying, they argue, falls into a category courts have consistently recognized as fair use, also known as “non-expressive use”.

The amicus brief cites several cases to back up their line of reasoning. This includes the Perfect 10 v. Amazon lawsuit, where the Ninth Circuit found that it was fair use when Google created thumbnails using images copied from unauthorized “pirate” sites, because the resulting image search tool was transformative.

The authors cited conflicting cases, but the professors note that cases where fair use was denied typically involved copyright infringement related to personal consumption, rather than use of content to create something new.

The brief distinguishes this case from those cited by the plaintiffs, which involved unauthorized copying for direct consumptive use (e.g., downloading for personal enjoyment). In contrast, Meta’s internal copies were allegedly not perceived by humans but used to build a new tool.

“Fair use, like copyright as a whole, ‘is not a privilege reserved for the well behaved’,” the brief notes. “Fair use doctrine should focus on the consequences of a ruling for knowledge and expression. Other considerations should be left for other legal regimes.”

Other countries, including Japan, have reportedly crafted exceptions in their law to allow tech companies to train LLMs on copyrighted material, without permission.

The U.S. has no such exceptions, but the professors urge the court to consider fair use. As the VCR and other innovations showed, copyright shouldn’t stand in the way of new tools and developing technologies.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 31 minutes ago

Would be interesting to see how they distinguish "personal consumption" and "transformative" consumption.

The AI did quite literally what any human educating themselves would have done : reading entire libraries to improve themselves. Then make money from it. So if little Timmy pirates 3DS Max or Photoshop to get a job, it's fine yeah? Or a student trying to read their course without paying hundreds of dollars?

But wait, when Timmy reads a single virtual book, it's thievery? It's the loss of a sale? So how many sales were lost through all those virtual books stolen from paying customers by the AI?

They gotta decide one way or another at some point and stop taking the piss.

Also I wonder if the AI can actually remember the entire content of each book they read though. Or any. And if they do, then can that actually be proof, for each individual book thus regurgitated, that the copyright has been unfairly used since a full reproduction (or close enough as to fool a reader?) would be now available.

That's gonna be some interesting jurisprudence.

[-] felixsu7@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 hours ago

So when they do it for profit and "innovation", it's "Fair Use" and legal.

But when i do it for educational purposes only, it's "piracy" and illegal.

Huh, okay then, it's fine for them to "steal" then basically turn that into profit, but when we do it not for profit, it's not fine.

[-] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago

Does that mean if someone sues me for downloading a torrent, I can say that I was just training my AI?

[-] root@aussie.zone 19 points 18 hours ago

I download and read pirated books because I am in the process of writing a new and transformative novel.

[-] kreynen@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 17 hours ago

@01011@monero.town So if I've illegally downloaded every paper and book published by Matthew Sag, Zahr K. Said, Jessica Silbey and Rebecca Tushnet and used that content to create an app that would output legal briefs in their voice saying whatever someone was willing to pay me to make it say, that is now legal? Or would that not qualify as "transformative" as shilling for $$$ is what lawyers have been doing for centuries?

[-] HeartyOfGlass@lemm.ee 36 points 1 day ago

So it's fair use when the AI reads something it didn’t pay for, but for humans it's "piracy".

Funny what money does.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

"Fair Use" doesnt even enter into the equation: copyright protects distribution, not reception. It is illegal to send the data; it is not illegal to receive it. It is not illegal to read something you didn't pay for. It may have been illegal for someone to provide you with that content, and it may be illegal for you to share that content with others, but it is not illegal for you to receive it and to read it.

It is the copyright-trolling "you wouldn't download a car" types that have spread the propaganda that downloading is somehow illegal. It is not. Uploading is the illegal part: distributing without permission is the violation of copyright. There is nothing illegal in asking for a copy, nor in receiving an unauthorized copy.

Don't let the zealotry against AI lead you to fight against your own interests.

[-] WhatSay@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 day ago

Now we just need to classify human minds as AI, and so everything downloaded is to train them.

[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 9 points 20 hours ago

AI = Actual Intelligence

I mean, humans are certainly a form of intelligence. You can also argue that they're artificially created through impregnation. So, humans can be said to be AI.

[-] Tempus_Fugit@midwest.social 40 points 1 day ago

Sounds like piracy is legal now, cool. Not that the legal status was going to deter me before, but this might embolden me more.

[-] unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de 53 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So piracy is legal now. We can use piracy data to train our brain models. No one can say it's not innovative nor transformative.

It's way better at driving cars.

We are advancing humanity!

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 31 points 1 day ago

So piracy is legal now.

For corporations.

Rank-and-file citizens have no new (or restored) rights.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Piracy was always defined as sharing and not downloading iirc

Where I am you can download whatever as long as you don’t share

[-] sqgl@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

Isn't the download a share?

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sharing is letting someone download stuff from you. And I am not even sure if here you aren’t actually allowed to share privately to few people

[-] sqgl@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

So the person you are downloading from is breaking the law but you are not. Odd law but I envy your situation.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

I know you are all jelly

[-] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"I was just downloading that to train my neural net"

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 24 points 1 day ago

These whores will do anything when a mega corpo pays...

Where Disney at?

[-] sqgl@beehaw.org 15 points 1 day ago

I don't trust that the lawyers weren't bribed.

Look at the Men At Work plagiarism case regarding Land Down Under. That was a transformative work yet the band lost the case to the estate of a nursery rhyme.

[-] Binx85@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

Isn’t this the argument for remixing? If they use pieces of work from other sources, but recombine them in novel ways, it is original? I would say this is a win, but I have a feeling a typical artist will not be afforded the same defense.

[-] 01011@monero.town 5 points 1 day ago

Unlike a cover, a remix differs in that it uses the original recording, and is not just a re-creation of it.

This means to release a remix legally, you must seek copyright permission from the original artist or band who created the song or the sample you want to remix or reuse.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

you must seek copyright permission from the original artist or band who created the song or the sample you want to remix or reuse.

this is false. people do it out of politeness not because its required.

edit: I might be mistaken for sampling/reuse i was thinking of parodys

[-] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

Sampling yes, remixing no. Remixes require permission, in sampling you could ask permission but tbh the OG artist probably stole the sample too.

[-] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I'm pretty sure remixes still need permission. I could be wrong but I know covers definitely need to seek legal permission from the copyright holder before they can use the song.

this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
95 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

59774 readers
327 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS