The ongoing legal dispute centers around copyright infringement allegations against Meta for redistributing authors' works through torrenting without permission. The authors claim that this action is unjust and violates fair use, drawing parallels to earlier cases against platforms like Napster. They assert that Meta has not only profited from their copyrighted material without compensation but has also impeded their earnings. The case gains further weight with mentions of books by Supreme Court justices, showcasing the broader implications of Meta's actions within the digital landscape, while the judge's unfamiliarity with terms related to torrenting complicates matters.
The authors are asserting that Meta's unauthorized distribution of their copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing constitutes clear copyright infringement, violating fair use.
As the legal battle unfolds, the authors emphasize that Meta's value derived from their works without compensation demonstrates a significant inequity in the publishing ecosystem.
The court's acknowledgment that key terms like 'leeching' are unfamiliar to the judge highlights the complexities surrounding modern copyright issues in the digital age.
By alleging that Meta pirated books even written by Supreme Court justices, the authors aim to illustrate the wide-ranging impact of Meta's actions on content creators.
Collection
[
|
...
]