The article discusses legal implications surrounding Meta's use of torrenting to download copyrighted materials, specifically in the context of a lawsuit brought by authors. Judge Chhabria highlights that while most cases of peer-to-peer file-sharing are seen as copyright infringement, the authors have not provided adequate evidence of how Meta's actions financially support pirate libraries. Furthermore, the transformative purpose of training AI models with these materials complicates the situation, suggesting that Meta’s downloading may not be straightforward copyright infringement. Overall, the legal outcome may hinge on the evidence showcased by the authors.
It could certainly look worse for Meta if authors manage to present evidence supporting the second way that torrenting could be relevant to the case, Chhabaria suggested.
Counting potential strikes against Meta, Chhabria pointed out that the 'vast majority of cases' involving 'this sort of peer-to-peer file-sharing' are found to 'constitute copyright infringement.'
Because Meta's ultimate use of the plaintiffs' books was transformative, so too was Meta's downloading of those books, Chhabria wrote.
Meta may overcome this argument, too, since book authors 'have not submitted any evidence' that potentially shows how Meta's downloading may perhaps be 'propping up' or financially benefiting pirate libraries.
Collection
[
|
...
]