In one of the ongoing legal battles involving Meta, the company faces serious accusations of distributing pirated books. A class-action lawsuit, filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, alleges that Meta used BitTorrent to share millions of pirated books downloaded from the shadow library LibGen with third parties. In response, Meta claims that it took precautions to prevent ‘seeding’ pirated content and argues that torrenting itself isn’t inherently illegal.
The AI Lawsuit Landscape
Over the past few years, a growing number of lawsuits have been filed by rightsholders against companies developing AI models. Many of these lawsuits focus on the use of copyrighted material to train large language models (LLMs) without proper authorization. While such practices raise concerns, many AI companies, including Meta, defend their actions by citing fair use, though its validity often depends on the specifics of each case.
Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, is embroiled in multiple copyright infringement lawsuits related to the development of its Llama AI models. Among these cases is the aforementioned class-action lawsuit, where the authors allege that Meta used their copyrighted works without permission for training purposes.
Allegations of Pirated Book Sharing
However, the authors’ accusations go beyond unauthorized use of their work. They assert that Meta downloaded millions of pirated books from LibGen and distributed the same content via BitTorrent to third parties. This claim, which goes a step further than typical copyright infringement, suggests that Meta facilitated further distribution of these pirated materials.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint last month, adding the BitTorrent allegations to their original claims. The authors point out that BitTorrent users typically upload content to others, and they argue that Meta, through its use of LibTorrent, acted as a “distribution point” for pirated books. The third amended complaint (TAC) notes, “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 complaint includes three key 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 Evidence of ‘Seeding’
Meta responded to the amended complaint with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims regarding torrenting and copyright violations don’t hold up. The company acknowledges downloading files but emphasizes that there is no evidence to suggest it “seeded” any files after downloading them. Meta contends that it took proactive steps to prevent pirated content from being shared with others.
In its legal response, Meta states, “Focused on ‘torrenting,’ which is a widely used protocol to download large files, Plaintiffs push a narrative that ignores evidence in their possession, including a detailed expert report, showing that Meta took precautions not to ‘seed’ any downloaded files.” While taking such precautions doesn’t guarantee that no illegal sharing occurred, Meta argues that without solid evidence of seeding, the court should dismiss the related claims.
Torrenting Is Not Illegal
Meta also challenges the legality of the plaintiffs’ arguments based on the use of BitTorrent. According to Meta, the California Penal Code § 502 (CDAFA) is an “anti-intrusion” statute, and since the company merely downloaded data that was publicly available on the LibGen site via BitTorrent, it didn’t violate the law. Meta insists that torrenting itself isn’t illegal, noting that BitTorrent is simply a tool for downloading files and does not inherently infringe upon copyright law.
Meta clarifies, “Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, there is nothing ‘independently illegal’ about torrenting on its own. Torrenting is merely a means of enabling users to download (i.e., copy) files.”
‘Leeching’ and the Legal Gray Area
While Meta has taken a firm stance on the legality of its actions, the authors of the lawsuit are not convinced. They suggest that Meta may have engaged in ‘leeching’—a term used when a user downloads data but does not upload it to others until a full copy is obtained. If Meta shared pirated content while leeching, this could still constitute an infringement.
This element introduces additional complexity to the case. While ‘seeding’ involves actively sharing files with others, ‘leeching’ may still involve unauthorized distribution, though whether the court will explore these nuances remains to be seen.
Conclusion
This case is one of the most intriguing in the ongoing battle over AI and copyright infringement. It raises important questions about the legality of torrenting, the responsibilities of companies using copyrighted materials to train AI models, and whether distribution of pirated content—whether through seeding or leeching—can be considered fair use. As the lawsuit unfolds, its implications could reverberate far beyond the Meta case, potentially setting legal precedents in the rapidly evolving world of AI and digital content distribution.
