Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

Legality of Downloading vs. Distributing

• Many distinguish between downloading (making a copy) and distributing (sharing), but disagree on what’s actually illegal.
• Several point out that in many jurisdictions, reproduction alone infringes copyright (e.g., RAM copy doctrine in the US); others note private-copy exceptions (e.g., Finland, some civil-law countries) where personal copying of non-DRM works is allowed.
• Some recall enforcement practices targeting torrent uploaders (seeders) rather than download-only users, largely for evidentiary and practical reasons.
• Others stress that “making available” in BitTorrent is itself distribution, regardless of speed or volume of upload.

Jurisdictional Differences & Enforcement

• Germany is cited as aggressive on torrent enforcement (letters, fines), but participants contest exaggerations like “knock on your door within hours.”
• Netherlands, Switzerland, Czechia, Sweden, South Africa are discussed as having or having had more permissive “private copy” regimes, often with levies on storage media; details and current legality are disputed.
• Usenet / direct download / IPTV use is seen as less targeted largely because it’s harder to trace individual users than BitTorrent peers.

Technical Debates About Seeding / Leeching

• Multiple people note that many clients can be set to zero or near-zero upload; some even mention custom or patched clients that effectively fake seeding without uploading payload data.
• Others argue that even throttled upload is still distribution and courts may care more about intent than exact byte counts.
• Several emphasize that in standard BitTorrent, downloading implies some simultaneous uploading; “seeding” is just the name once download completes.

Meta’s Legal Strategy & Power Asymmetry

• Meta’s filing is clarified: they are trying to knock out specific claims (California CDAFA, DMCA §1202 CMI-removal theory), not broadly claim all their conduct was lawful.
• Commenters see the “no proof of seeding” line as a tactical move to force plaintiffs to prove distribution, knowing that technical proof may be hard.
• Many highlight the power imbalance: individuals were ruined for small-scale piracy, while a trillion‑dollar firm argues a similar theory with vast legal resources.
• Some expect plaintiffs to settle or drop to avoid a precedent that weakens copyright enforcement against large-scale AI training.

Copyright Purpose, Terminology, and Philosophy

• Long digression over “copyright” vs “author’s rights,” and whether the law is about copying, distribution, or protecting creators vs corporations.
• Several argue current terms (life+70/90 years, work-for-hire durations) primarily entrench corporate control, not author welfare.
• Others stress that copyright grants exclusive reproduction and distribution rights; merely renaming it doesn’t change the underlying powers.

AI Training on Pirated / Copyrighted Works

• Central underlying issue: is using torrented books for LLM training a lawful use (possibly fair use / transformative), or a massive commercial infringement?
• Some argue models are derivative works or lossy compressed copies, so distributing models is effectively redistributing the corpus.
• Others analogize training to humans reading and learning: models store statistical abstractions, not works themselves; outputs are new compositions.
• Debate over whether AI training rights should be treated like any other novel use (e.g., sampling, search indexing) or require a new licensing regime.
• Some fear strict training permissions would cement a moat for well-funded incumbents; others counter that letting megacorps ingest everything for free entrenches them even more.

Precedent, Double Standards, and Broader Concerns

• Several note that for years anti‑piracy campaigns framed downloading as criminal; Meta’s position appears to invert that when convenient.
• People worry any favorable Meta outcome would not protect individuals: courts and enforcers routinely treat “rules for thee, not for me.”
• Others see a possible upside: if courts lean toward “downloading ≠ infringement without proof of distribution,” it could soften the legacy copyright crackdown and benefit the wider public.
• There is strong moral outrage that a giant corporation both pirates at scale and monetizes the result (AI products) while ordinary users were harshly punished for far less.