"This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful," he wrote. "It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one."

The plaintiffs focused their arguments on how Meta's AI models can reproduce exact snippets from their works and how the company's Llama models hurt their ability to license their books to AI companies. These arguments weren't as compelling in Chhabria's eyes -- he called them "clear losers" -- so he sided with Meta.

That's different from the Anthropic ruling, where Judge William Alsup focused on the "exceedingly transformative" nature of the use of the plaintiff's books in the results AI chatbots spit out. Chhabria wrote that while "there is no disputing" that the use of copyrighted material was transformative, the more urgent question was the effect AI systems had on the ecosystem as a whole.

Maybe? Not lawyer, but sound like train might fair use? And generate not?

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

But that judgement clearly had nothing to do with the use of pirated material, right? It might give a partial pass to the use of copyrighted material for training LLM, but it says nothing about pirating material being legal if it is used for training LLM, which the top comment was alluding to.

[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

https://torrentfreak.com/meta-secures-bittersweet-fair-use-victory-in-ai-piracy-case-250626/

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on both motions, which at first sight offers a clear win for Meta. The court denied the authors’ motion to hold Meta liable for direct copyright infringement after it obtaining pirated books from shadow libraries via BitTorrent.

Did have piracy part. Just not listed on first website.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the source. It also seems like the distribution part is not ruled on yet, so we don't know if they'll get away with pirating stuff just yet.

[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago

Yes. Apparently meta try to only leech by modify config. But also say not use facebook server/ip to mask any seed. So not sure if actually seed. Or if matter at all.

[–] petrescatraian@libranet.de 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hmmm, that got me thinking: if you selfhost, you make sure you also instal ollama or some LLM you can also self-host. You don't need to use the LLM yourself at all. Then if something goes south, and you're accused of piracy, you can just defend yourself that you used all these materials to train your own LLM. That should get you out of trouble, right?

[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you billion dollar company. Probably not if individual.

[–] petrescatraian@libranet.de 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@far_university1990 yes but the legal precedent has been set, lol

(/s maybe)

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Again, they haven't made a decision on the distribution part of the training data, which is the one related to piracy. They only ruled that using copyrighted material for training LLM did not satisfy copyright infringement for the specific argument used by the authors against Meta.

[–] petrescatraian@libranet.de 1 points 2 days ago

Damn

[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That part not, but meta pirate lot of material. Think that always part of jugdement? Will look up case more.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 1 points 3 days ago

There might be a different court case for the piracy part. I'll also keep a look out for them.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dont know, ask an LLM.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 1 points 3 days ago

If you don't know, where did you get the idea it would be okay to pirate books if it is used to train an LLM?