Uploading Pirated Books via BitTorrent Qualifies as Fair Use, Meta Argues
Meta’s legal claim that uploading pirated books via BitTorrent as part of training AI models qualifies as “fair use” has triggered debate over copyright, power, and hypocrisy. Commenters contrast harsh treatment of individual pirates with the leniency expected for trillion‑dollar firms, question whether such precedents would ever benefit ordinary users, and argue over whether weakening copyright in this way advances access to knowledge or simply entrenches corporate control over culture and AI.
Corporate vs. Individual Piracy and Power Asymmetry
- Many contrast “poor kid pirating for entertainment” with trillion‑dollar companies pirating to enrich themselves.
- Strong sentiment that laws are harshly enforced against individuals but bent or reinterpreted for corporations.
- Some argue nothing fundamental changed: the money still flows upward; courts function as tools of power.
- Others point out that different “activists” care about different things (free information vs. artists’ livelihoods), so reactions aren’t purely anti‑corporate tribalism.
Meta’s Fair Use & BitTorrent Argument
- Meta’s claim: BitTorrent inherently uploads while downloading, so any incidental uploading is just how the protocol works and should be fair use.
- Multiple commenters rebut this technically: clients can minimize or disable upload; modified or certain clients can set upload to zero, so uploading is a choice.
- Some note BitTorrent’s social norms vs. protocol mechanics (seeding is default in clients, not a hard requirement).
- Many see Meta’s line as a desperate, almost comical legal argument unlikely to persuade a court.
AI Training, Copyright, and Precedent
- Debate over whether training on pirated books (or any copyrighted works) can be fair use, with comparisons to earlier book‑scanning cases.
- One view: training is transformative, doesn’t substitute for books, and publishers/authors suffer no legal harm.
- Opposing view: models depend critically on these works; authors should be paid or able to set conditions.
- Concern that large AI firms will cut licensing deals with big content owners, then use copyright to block open and startup competitors from training.
History of Enforcement and Damages
- Recollection of past RIAA lawsuits, statutory damages far above actual losses, and focus on upload/distribution in P2P cases.
- Some highlight the absurdity of damages scaling and the threat model: ordinary users sued for thousands vs. corporations treating infringement fines as a business cost.
IP, Levies, and Moral Views on Piracy
- Several express support for piracy or abolition/major reform of IP, with the caveat that creators still need to be paid.
- Discussion of “private copying levies” on storage media (e.g., in some European countries) as moral justification for personal piracy; others argue this unfairly subsidizes pirates and incumbents.
Broader Worries About AI and Law
- Fears that AI follows the surveillance industry pattern: free and useful early, then locked‑down, enshittified, and heavily regulated in favor of incumbents.
- Cynicism that whatever precedent emerges will likely favor corporations and not “regular people.”