Judge Advances Copyright Case Against Meta, Citing Alleged BitTorrent Distribution

A federal judge in California has greenlit a significant portion of a copyright lawsuit against Meta Platforms, moving forward claims that the company didn't just download pirated books to train its AI—it allegedly redistributed them. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria's ruling dismisses several of Meta's defenses, potentially exposing the company to greater liability.

The case, brought by authors including Richard Kadrey and Sarah Silverman, hinges on the use of BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing system. The plaintiffs contend Meta employees used it to acquire datasets of copyrighted books from sources like LibGen. Crucially, they allege Meta's systems, operating with default settings, then automatically 'seeded' or uploaded fragments of those books to other users on the network. In legal terms, this transforms the allegation from simple unauthorized copying to active distribution, which carries heavier penalties.

Judge Chhabria found the plaintiffs' argument plausible. He rejected Meta's claim that no distribution was proven, noting BitTorrent's design means seeding inherently shares data. He also dismissed Meta's assertion that any seeding was merely incidental to downloading.

This creates a distinct problem for Meta, separate from the industry-wide debate over whether AI training constitutes fair use. Even if a court someday accepts a fair use defense for training, it likely wouldn't shield the act of distributing the works via BitTorrent. Evidence cited in the case, including internal Meta discussions about using LibGen datasets, may also undermine arguments that any infringement was unintentional.

The ruling allows core infringement claims and allegations that Meta stripped copyright management information to proceed. With statutory damages for willful infringement reaching up to $150,000 per work, potential liability is immense. As the case enters evidence discovery, Meta faces a difficult choice: fight the claims in court and risk a precedent-setting loss, or seek a settlement that could encourage similar lawsuits.

Source: Webpronews