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.

  • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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.

      • lmmarsano@group.lt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        I wouldn’t be so confident without a legal argument to support your opinion.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          No legal argument is necessary. Just look at history. The rich and well connected have always lived by a different set of rules.

          See below:

          • Robert Richards (Du Pont heir): A 2014 Forbes article noted that a Du Pont heir, Robert Richards, pleaded guilty to raping his 3-year-old daughter in 2008 and received probation instead of jail time, which caused public outrage.
          • August Busch IV: August Busch IV, a former Anheuser-Busch CEO, has been involved in past legal incidents, including a girlfriend’s overdose death at his house in 2010 and a car crash in 1983, but he was not charged with rape in these cases.
    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Not all IP is self surviving. Even CopyRight isn’t always a bad thing, if you think of small artists, for example. My fear is about CopyLeft mainly as I feel it’s been incredible successful in pushing forwards openness. The megacorps hating it, tells you it is doing its job. Only of the things they love about LLM and code is it can license wash away CopyLeft.