It can certainly look worse for Meta if authors succeed in presenting evidence to support the second way in which Torrenting could be relevant to the case, Chhabaria suggested.
“Meta download copyright protected material from shadow libraries” would also be relevant to the character of use, “if it benefited those who made the libraries and thus supported their unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works,” wrote Chabria.
Chahabria has potential strikes against meta and pointed out that the “vast majority of cases” with “this kind of peer-to-peer file exchange” turn out to be “infringing copyright”. And it probably does not help that Meta's case that “some of the libraries used are held liable for infringement.”
However, Meta can also overcome this argument, because book authors “have not submitted any evidence” that may show how downloading Meta may “support” or financially benefit pirate libraries.
Finally, Chahabria noted that the “Last issue with regard to the character of the use of Meta” of books related to the torrenting is “the relationship between meta by downloading the claimants and the use of the plaintiffs' books and the use of the books to train Llama.”
Authors had tried to claim that these elements were different. But CHHABRIA said that the fact was not separated that Meta has downloaded the books to serve the “very transforming” goal of training of Lama.
“Because the ultimate use of meta from the books of the claimants was transforming, it was also downloading those books by Meta,” wrote Chhabria.
AI -Training rules can get more authors paid
Authors only heard of the torrenting of Meta through discovery in the court case, and therefore Chababria noted that “the record about the alleged distribution of Meta is incomplete.”
It is possible that authors may be able to show evidence that Meta has “contributed to the Bittorrent network” by offering a considerable computing power that could have had a meaningfully assured shadow libraries, Chhabria said in a footnote.
