Meta is facing serious allegations in an ongoing class-action lawsuit, with authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden accusing the company of distributing pirated books. According to the lawsuit, Meta allegedly used BitTorrent to download millions of pirated books from the shadow library LibGen and shared them with third parties. In response, Meta maintains that it took measures to prevent the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content and argues that torrenting, in itself, is not illegal.
AI Copyright Lawsuits on the Rise
Lawsuits against AI companies over the use of copyrighted material in training models have been increasing. Many of these cases center on whether AI firms have the right to use protected works without permission. While Meta and other tech giants often cite fair use as a defense, the legal interpretation of this doctrine varies depending on the specific circumstances.
Meta, under Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership, is already involved in multiple copyright disputes concerning its Llama AI models. The class-action lawsuit in question goes beyond claims of unauthorized use, suggesting that Meta actively engaged in distributing pirated books via BitTorrent.
Allegations of Unauthorized Distribution
The lawsuit, recently amended to include BitTorrent-related accusations, claims that Meta downloaded vast amounts of pirated content and acted as a distribution hub by using LibTorrent. The plaintiffs argue that BitTorrent technology naturally involves file-sharing and that Meta’s actions extended beyond passive downloading.
According to the third amended complaint (TAC), “Meta downloaded millions of pirated books from LibGen through the BitTorrent protocol using a platform called LibTorrent. Internally, Meta acknowledged that using this protocol was legally problematic.”
The lawsuit outlines three primary claims against Meta:
- Direct Copyright Infringement
- Removal of Copyright Management Information
- Violation of California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA)
Meta’s Defense: No Proof of File Sharing
Meta has pushed back against these claims, filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The company acknowledges downloading files but insists that there is no evidence it “seeded” or shared those files with others. Meta states that it took deliberate precautions to prevent any unauthorized redistribution.
In its legal response, Meta argues, “Plaintiffs focus on ‘torrenting,’ a common protocol for transferring large files, but ignore evidence—including an expert report—showing that Meta took steps to prevent ‘seeding’ any downloaded files.” While these precautions do not entirely rule out unauthorized sharing, Meta contends that without concrete proof, the claims should be dismissed.
Torrenting: Legal or Not?
Meta also disputes the plaintiffs’ reliance on California’s CDAFA statute, which targets unauthorized access to computer systems. The company argues that because the data it accessed was already publicly available on LibGen, its actions did not constitute a violation. Furthermore, Meta asserts that torrenting itself is not illegal and that BitTorrent is merely a technology used to facilitate file transfers.
“Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, there is nothing ‘independently illegal’ about torrenting on its own. Torrenting is simply a method for downloading files and does not inherently infringe copyright law,” Meta states.
The ‘Leeching’ Debate
While Meta denies any wrongdoing, the lawsuit raises questions about whether it engaged in ‘leeching’—a practice where a user downloads files but does not upload them until obtaining a full copy. If Meta shared pirated books during this process, it could still be considered an infringement, even without explicit seeding.
This legal gray area complicates the case. While seeding is a clear form of distribution, the implications of leeching remain uncertain in copyright law. Whether the court will explore these nuances remains to be seen.
Conclusion
This lawsuit highlights broader concerns over AI development, copyright infringement, and the legal boundaries of torrenting. As the case progresses, it could set important precedents for how companies use copyrighted content in training AI models and whether certain forms of digital content distribution fall under fair use. The outcome may shape future legal battles in the rapidly evolving intersection of AI, intellectual property, and digital media.
