this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
652 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

82711 readers
2810 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 86 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Rules for thee but not for me ahhhh corpo shit.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 21 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So when this works for them it'll be precedent to allow the fair use pirating of all media and software, right?

Oh never mind, I forgot that I don't have billions of dollars to spend on lawyers. Never mind.

[–] andybytes@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

At this point I don't understand pirating software.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

He's ex blizzard dev who opened his own indie studio

And he's out of mana.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Honestly I agree with Meta here but this should apply to everyone. I think most people here conflate their hate for Meta with the factual reality of intellectual property.

[–] SpaceMan9000@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I can hate both.

People can also hate the fact that if you have enough money you can make everything legal.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

What do you mean you can hate both? Whats the other of your hates? Disregard for copyright absolutism?

[–] andybytes@programming.dev 11 points 6 days ago

So we subsidize these baby killing bastards and they pull the broke boy card. The united state is a brutal imperialist capitalist shithole ...pffft fuck capitalism

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Copyrights over 5-10 years or not held by the creator are stealing from the commons/public domain and there is no moral obligation to follow those laws, and some would say a moral responsibility to share pirated copies of those works to everyone, not just corpo slop machines. Also good luck proving leading AI is a good thing and not destroying education and critical thinking skills.

[–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

So Anna's Archive is legal now?

[–] AffineConnection@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

It's OK when corporations do it.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago

I saw this coming from 69 miles away

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeaaah well. I'm just gonna say everything is free now.

(except if I explicitly want to give someone money of course. Surely not a company)

[–] oscarpizarro@masto.es 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

@artifex

La información debe ser libre.

En lo personal, no por defender las leyes estadounidenses, tampoco por defender a meta. Digo esto para que no caigan en opiniones vacias sobre lo que soy o dejo de ser.

[–] artifex@piefed.social 2 points 6 days ago

A reasonable copyright is a good thing - it gives authors a limited period of exclusivity on their work, after which it becomes a part of our general culture. What people are upset about, I think, is how the biggest companies are "allowed' to violate copyright in the name of business, while the rest of us are not.

Traducción automática porque mi nivel de español en DuoLingo es solo 35):

Un derecho de autor razonable es algo positivo: otorga a los autores un periodo limitado de exclusividad sobre su obra, tras la cual pasa a formar parte de nuestra cultura general. Lo que a la gente le molesta, creo, es cómo a las empresas más grandes se les "permite" violar los derechos de autor en nombre de los negocios, mientras que el resto de nosotros no.

load more comments
view more: next ›