Comment by Lio
6 months ago
My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't own.
I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act.
It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.
It's because in the US, you are granted the right to copy (copyright) broadly and under a number of circumstances. The creator is given a right to prevent copying under a limited (albeit very broad) set of circumstances.
Since we have a usage based assessment system on the major chip in the right to prevent copying, "fair use", which by the way is designed specifically for the common good -- enhancing the overall value to society of works that are limited by their creators -- its not about the copying. Its about the usage. Reading by an llm is fair usage in this case according to this judge's early speculations.