6 ms·

The title for this submission is somewhat misleading. The judge didn't make any sort of ruling, this is just reporting on a pretrial hearing. He also doesn't se

by ndiddy 1y ago

The title for this submission is somewhat misleading. The judge didn't make any sort of ruling, this is just reporting on a pretrial hearing. He also doesn't seem convinced as to how relevant downloading books from LibGen is to the case: > At times, it sounded like the case was the authors’ to lose, with [Judge] Chhabria noting that Meta was “destined to fail” if the plaintiffs could prove that Meta’s tools created similar works that cratered how much money they could make from their work. But Chhabria also stressed that he was unconvinced the authors would be able to show the necessary evidence. When he turned to the authors’ legal team, led by high-profile attorney David Boies, Chhabria repeatedly asked whether the plaintiffs could actually substantiate accusations that Meta’s AI tools were likely to hurt their commercial prospects. “It seems like you’re asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman’s memoir will be affected,” he told Boies. “It’s not obvious to me that is the case.” > When defendants invoke the fair use doctrine, the burden of proof shifts to them to demonstrate that their use of copyrighted works is legal. Boies stressed this point during the hearing, but Chhabria remained skeptical that the authors’ legal team would be able to successfully argue that Meta could plausibly crater their sales. He also appeared lukewarm about whether Meta’s decision to download books from places like LibGen was as central to the fair use issue as the plaintiffs argued it was. “It seems kind of messed up,” he said. “The question, as the courts tell us over and over again, is not whether something is messed up but whether it’s copyright infringement.”

bgwalter 1y ago
The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. They just got high penalties for infringers almost by default. Now that big capital wants to steal from individuals, big capital wins again. (Unrelatedly, has Boies ever won a high profile lawsuit? I remember him from the Bush/Gore recount issue, where he represented the Democrats.)
- kranke155 1y ago
  Copyright was invented (in its modern form) by corporations. It will be uninvented if need be for corporations.
  - Zambyte 1y ago
    I'm curious what you mean by "in it's modern form". You seem to suggest there was a previous form that was not invented by corporations, but I don't believe that is the case.
    - ryoshu 1y ago
      Copyright was first established by governments and the Church prior to the invention of corporations.
      - Zambyte 1y ago
        > The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Okay, not a corporation, but a company.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > Copyright was first established by governments and the Church prior to the invention of corporations. No, it wasn't. The first copyright law is generally held to be the Statute of Anne (1710) in Britain (the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662 which preceded it was not a "copyright law" in the sense that it did not provide for ownership of a right to publish/print particular works, but provided, as the name suggested, for licensing of printing presses, and revocation of said licenses -- it was more of a general censorship law); and even if you limit the scope to Britain (well, in either case, England before the Union with Scotland) corporations go back further (depending on whether you mean corporations as "entities which are not natural persons with legal personality"—the City of London Corporation's establishment is literally lost to history, but known to predate the Norman Conquest—or "joint stock companies"—the Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands in 1551 would be the first.)
    - nickpsecurity 1y ago
- anshumankmr 1y ago
  Interesting figure that guy. Here's this: >Boies also was on the Theranos board of directors,[2][74] raising questions about conflicts of interest.[75] Boies agreed to be paid for his firm's work in Theranos stock, which he expected to grow dramatically in value.[75][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies That was one of the decisions of all time.
  - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
    He was also the primary villain of John Carreyrou's account of Theranos' rise and fall -- Bad Blood -- as his firm attempted to bully and hound whistleblowers, and intimidate their families with baseless legal threats. Not a very nice or ethical guy.
    - anshumankmr 1y ago
      >also the primary villain Hopefully second to Holmes,eh?
      - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
        Holmes seemed shady, really careless, and criminally flippant re: shipping medical technologies that never worked. But Boies was an out-and-out scoundrel, a real old-fashioned criminal enforcer type. I had (and still have, to some extent,) mixed feelings about Holmes. She's like an avatar of SV's "fake it 'til you make it" aspect, taken way too far, to an uncomfortable extreme. Boies, though? He represents the absolute perversion of the legal profession and the Common Law. In him you see how it is used by the powerful to bludgeon and coerce the weak. The Law as naked and unambiguous Lawful Evil. He's the worse villain of the two. And, aptly, this Mephistopheles is the one still walking free.
    - favorited 1y ago
      He was a secondary villain in Ronan Farrow's Catch and Kill book, as Harvey Weinstein's attorney. He employed similar tactics to protect Weinstein as he did for Theranos. He was fired by the New York Times after all this came out, because he hired private investigators to go after the NYT reporters investigating Weinstein (Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohey at the NYT broke the story just before Farrow's reporting was published), while also representing the Times.
- nadermx 1y ago
  Copyright infringement is not stealing[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
  - immibis 1y ago
    No, but the law treats it as bad as stealing when an individual copyright-infringes from a corporation, so why shouldn't it be as bad as stealing when a corporation copyright-infringes from an individual? Of course, even this isn't enough, since corporations regularly steal (actually) from individuals, with near impunity.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- fmblwntr 1y ago
  ironically, he was the head lawyer on the legal team for napster (obviously a huge loss) but it accords well with your theory
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  If I remember correctly the legal precedent from that era, and if I'm summarizing correctly: Those who served or uploaded were considered to be infringing, since they were "making copies" by serving or uploading, whereas those who downloaded infringing copies were not themselves infringers. Meta in this case is at least described by the latter, and the question is whether LLM generation constitutes the former.
- 999900000999 1y ago
  Meta needs these books. They seek to convert them into more products. The needs of the copyright holders , who are relatively small businesses and individuals are outweighed by the needs of Meta. Sarah wanting to watch a movie or listen to music... Too bad she doesn't have an elite team of lawyers to justify whatever she wants. In practice Meta has the money to stretch this out forever and at most pay inconsequential settlements. YouTube largely did the same thing, knowingly violate copyright law, stack the deck with lawyers and fix it later.
  - anton-c 1y ago
    Content id is actually a pretty good solution tho. Copyright holders do get paid ad revenue, and when u post a vid of your daughter's wedding with Kenny loggins' copyrighted music playing, it doesn't get removed. Sony or Universal or whomever is just gonna get the monetization. Seems like a good deal for both sides. Edit: I didn't make it clear... I don't think meta is going to be paying or offering a revenue stream like YouTube ended up creating. I also have no idea if YT actually brings in money for those groups and if the copyright holders essentially took what they could get or were happy with the deal so who knows. It's only when other parts of the system get abused there's problems but that's a sep issue...
- Majromax 1y ago
  > The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. They just got high penalties for infringers almost by default. The argument for 'fair use' in DVD copying/sharing is much weaker since the thing being shared in that case is a verbatim, digital copy of the work. 'Format shifting' is a tenuous argument, and it's pretty easily limited to making (and not distributing) personal copies of media. For AI training, a central argument is that training is transformative. An LLM isn't intended to produce verbatim copies of trained-upon works, and the problem of hallucination means an LLM would be unreliable at doing so even if instructed to. That transformation could support the idea of fair use, even though copies of the data are made (internally) during the training process and the model's weights are in some sense a work 'derived' from the training data. If you analogize to human leaning, then there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. However, it feels unseemly for a computer program to do this kind of thing at scale, and the commercial impact can be significantly greater.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. What do you mean here by "clearly?" This is not at all clear, and court cases have been decided in the opposite direction. This case: https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family-prevails-in-blurred-lines-plagiarism-case-idUSKBN1GX273/ https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family... is as far from what you say is "clearly" true as could possibly be. You're handwaving away the parts of the question that are difficult.
    - lsaferite 1y ago
      But that case involves publishing of content. If you want to compare them, it seems like you'd argue that the content of Pharrell Williams' head is somehow copyright infringement. I've yet to see anyone credible say that an AI model outputting exact content and then someone publishing that should be allowed. If you manage to make an AI model output copyrighted content, you can't then claim it's not copyrighted. If you sit on one side of a table and read a book out loud and I write it down (with minor transcription errors), that content is almost certainly still copyrighted content and I could not distribute it legally.
- cma 1y ago
  That's because that was statutory infringement where marketplace impact things come up more in fair use ("drummer reacts to hearing most famous drummer for the first time"). They look at whether it acts as a substitute for the original, but there are different rules depending on the type of fair use, how transformative it is, and more.
- favorited 1y ago
  > Unrelatedly, has Boies ever won a high profile lawsuit? I remember him from the Bush/Gore recount issue, where he represented the Democrats. He teamed up with opposing counsel from Bush v. Gore, Ted Olson, and the pair of them represented plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the SCOTUS case which overturned Prop 8, California's gay marriage ban.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. Did any of the defendants raise a fair use defense based on a transformative use that they were making of the downloaded copies? If not, you are in the domain of "unlike legal situations lead to unlike decisions" which is not exactly surprising.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    IIRC format shifting was argued to be part of fair use. I would think that taking an audio CD and ripping it into MP3 would be transformative, but I don't think the law would agree.
- fazeirony 1y ago
  when kids during the napster era were downloading music, the mega-corporations yelled that their bottom-lines to shareholders were being destroyed. now, when the mega-corporations do it, it is 'just the cost of doing business'. in both cases, the mega-corporations win because...they have the most money. law, and certainly justice, is not for the poor. at least not in america.
selfselfgo 1y ago
To me it’s a totally insane argument from the judge, if it doesn’t stop the authors from making money on their works, then the judge is basically capping the income on all writers. The AI is totally useless without their knowledge and yet they have to prove they aren’t hurting its profits. Like these authors are entitled to derivative uses of their writing, if they’re not it’s a total farce.
doctorpangloss 1y ago
Hacker News readers want simple, first principles answers that fit in a tweet, that require no reading, let alone case law, to understand. This trial is way beyond the statutes and case law. The judge is doing a job, hard to conceive what the best job would be - I'm not sure Congress even knows what the policy should be or if the public has even the faintest wiff of how things should work.
pessimizer 1y ago
> “It seems like you’re asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman’s memoir will be affected,” he told Boies. “It’s not obvious to me that is the case.” "LLM, please summarize Sarah Silverman's memoir for me." edit: Reader's Digest would be very surprised to know that they shouldn't have been paying for books.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  If you do that, it won't be able to give you a summary detailed enough to infringe anything.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    It may give me a summary good enough that I don't have to buy the book, since it read the book. If there are any parts that aren't detailed enough for me, I can ask them to be expanded. If you're telling me that's not "infringing," you should follow what up with the argument for why it is not.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      Lots of websites will give you summaries of books and they never get sued for that, let alone lose. If you ask the LLM for the summary to be expanded much, and you're not providing it with a fresh copy of the book to reference, it's going to be wrong.
    - gs17 1y ago
      > It may give me a summary good enough that I don't have to buy the book, since it read the book. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles with summaries good enough "to not have to buy the book", because they were written by people who read the book. Should those be taken down?
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"The title of this submission is somewhate misleading." Better to read the submission before drawing conclusions rather than only the HN title. In this case the HN title has been editorialised. The actual title of the article is "A Judge Says Meta's AI Copyright Case Is About `the Next Taylor Swift'" "The judge didn't make any sort of ruling, this is just reporting on a pretrial hearing." The HN title doesn't mention anything about a "ruling". Nor does the title chosen by Wired. The subheading in the article reads "Meta's contentious AI copyright battle is heating up-and the court may be close to a ruling." That is accurate. The Court will soon decide the SJ motions. Reading the article leaves no chance of being mislead by any title: "If Chhabria grants either motion, he'll issue a ruling before the case goes to trial-and likely set an important precedent shaping how courts deal with generative AI copyright cases moving forward."

by ndiddy 1y ago

bgwalter 1y ago

The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. They just got high penalties for infringers almost by default. Now that big capital wants to steal from individuals, big capital wins again. (Unrelatedly, has Boies ever won a high profile lawsuit? I remember him from the Bush/Gore recount issue, where he represented the Democrats.)

kranke155 1y ago
Copyright was invented (in its modern form) by corporations. It will be uninvented if need be for corporations.
- Zambyte 1y ago
  I'm curious what you mean by "in it's modern form". You seem to suggest there was a previous form that was not invented by corporations, but I don't believe that is the case.
  - ryoshu 1y ago
    Copyright was first established by governments and the Church prior to the invention of corporations.
    - Zambyte 1y ago
      > The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Okay, not a corporation, but a company.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Copyright was first established by governments and the Church prior to the invention of corporations. No, it wasn't. The first copyright law is generally held to be the Statute of Anne (1710) in Britain (the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662 which preceded it was not a "copyright law" in the sense that it did not provide for ownership of a right to publish/print particular works, but provided, as the name suggested, for licensing of printing presses, and revocation of said licenses -- it was more of a general censorship law); and even if you limit the scope to Britain (well, in either case, England before the Union with Scotland) corporations go back further (depending on whether you mean corporations as "entities which are not natural persons with legal personality"—the City of London Corporation's establishment is literally lost to history, but known to predate the Norman Conquest—or "joint stock companies"—the Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands in 1551 would be the first.)
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
anshumankmr 1y ago
Interesting figure that guy. Here's this: >Boies also was on the Theranos board of directors,[2][74] raising questions about conflicts of interest.[75] Boies agreed to be paid for his firm's work in Theranos stock, which he expected to grow dramatically in value.[75][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies That was one of the decisions of all time.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  He was also the primary villain of John Carreyrou's account of Theranos' rise and fall -- Bad Blood -- as his firm attempted to bully and hound whistleblowers, and intimidate their families with baseless legal threats. Not a very nice or ethical guy.
  - anshumankmr 1y ago
    >also the primary villain Hopefully second to Holmes,eh?
    - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
      Holmes seemed shady, really careless, and criminally flippant re: shipping medical technologies that never worked. But Boies was an out-and-out scoundrel, a real old-fashioned criminal enforcer type. I had (and still have, to some extent,) mixed feelings about Holmes. She's like an avatar of SV's "fake it 'til you make it" aspect, taken way too far, to an uncomfortable extreme. Boies, though? He represents the absolute perversion of the legal profession and the Common Law. In him you see how it is used by the powerful to bludgeon and coerce the weak. The Law as naked and unambiguous Lawful Evil. He's the worse villain of the two. And, aptly, this Mephistopheles is the one still walking free.
  - favorited 1y ago
    He was a secondary villain in Ronan Farrow's Catch and Kill book, as Harvey Weinstein's attorney. He employed similar tactics to protect Weinstein as he did for Theranos. He was fired by the New York Times after all this came out, because he hired private investigators to go after the NYT reporters investigating Weinstein (Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohey at the NYT broke the story just before Farrow's reporting was published), while also representing the Times.
nadermx 1y ago
Copyright infringement is not stealing[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
- immibis 1y ago
  No, but the law treats it as bad as stealing when an individual copyright-infringes from a corporation, so why shouldn't it be as bad as stealing when a corporation copyright-infringes from an individual? Of course, even this isn't enough, since corporations regularly steal (actually) from individuals, with near impunity.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fmblwntr 1y ago
ironically, he was the head lawyer on the legal team for napster (obviously a huge loss) but it accords well with your theory
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
If I remember correctly the legal precedent from that era, and if I'm summarizing correctly: Those who served or uploaded were considered to be infringing, since they were "making copies" by serving or uploading, whereas those who downloaded infringing copies were not themselves infringers. Meta in this case is at least described by the latter, and the question is whether LLM generation constitutes the former.
999900000999 1y ago
Meta needs these books. They seek to convert them into more products. The needs of the copyright holders , who are relatively small businesses and individuals are outweighed by the needs of Meta. Sarah wanting to watch a movie or listen to music... Too bad she doesn't have an elite team of lawyers to justify whatever she wants. In practice Meta has the money to stretch this out forever and at most pay inconsequential settlements. YouTube largely did the same thing, knowingly violate copyright law, stack the deck with lawyers and fix it later.
- anton-c 1y ago
  Content id is actually a pretty good solution tho. Copyright holders do get paid ad revenue, and when u post a vid of your daughter's wedding with Kenny loggins' copyrighted music playing, it doesn't get removed. Sony or Universal or whomever is just gonna get the monetization. Seems like a good deal for both sides. Edit: I didn't make it clear... I don't think meta is going to be paying or offering a revenue stream like YouTube ended up creating. I also have no idea if YT actually brings in money for those groups and if the copyright holders essentially took what they could get or were happy with the deal so who knows. It's only when other parts of the system get abused there's problems but that's a sep issue...
Majromax 1y ago
> The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. They just got high penalties for infringers almost by default. The argument for 'fair use' in DVD copying/sharing is much weaker since the thing being shared in that case is a verbatim, digital copy of the work. 'Format shifting' is a tenuous argument, and it's pretty easily limited to making (and not distributing) personal copies of media. For AI training, a central argument is that training is transformative. An LLM isn't intended to produce verbatim copies of trained-upon works, and the problem of hallucination means an LLM would be unreliable at doing so even if instructed to. That transformation could support the idea of fair use, even though copies of the data are made (internally) during the training process and the model's weights are in some sense a work 'derived' from the training data. If you analogize to human leaning, then there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. However, it feels unseemly for a computer program to do this kind of thing at scale, and the commercial impact can be significantly greater.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. What do you mean here by "clearly?" This is not at all clear, and court cases have been decided in the opposite direction. This case: https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family-prevails-in-blurred-lines-plagiarism-case-idUSKBN1GX273/ https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family... is as far from what you say is "clearly" true as could possibly be. You're handwaving away the parts of the question that are difficult.
  - lsaferite 1y ago
    But that case involves publishing of content. If you want to compare them, it seems like you'd argue that the content of Pharrell Williams' head is somehow copyright infringement. I've yet to see anyone credible say that an AI model outputting exact content and then someone publishing that should be allowed. If you manage to make an AI model output copyrighted content, you can't then claim it's not copyrighted. If you sit on one side of a table and read a book out loud and I write it down (with minor transcription errors), that content is almost certainly still copyrighted content and I could not distribute it legally.
cma 1y ago
That's because that was statutory infringement where marketplace impact things come up more in fair use ("drummer reacts to hearing most famous drummer for the first time"). They look at whether it acts as a substitute for the original, but there are different rules depending on the type of fair use, how transformative it is, and more.
favorited 1y ago
> Unrelatedly, has Boies ever won a high profile lawsuit? I remember him from the Bush/Gore recount issue, where he represented the Democrats. He teamed up with opposing counsel from Bush v. Gore, Ted Olson, and the pair of them represented plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the SCOTUS case which overturned Prop 8, California's gay marriage ban.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. Did any of the defendants raise a fair use defense based on a transformative use that they were making of the downloaded copies? If not, you are in the domain of "unlike legal situations lead to unlike decisions" which is not exactly surprising.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  IIRC format shifting was argued to be part of fair use. I would think that taking an audio CD and ripping it into MP3 would be transformative, but I don't think the law would agree.
fazeirony 1y ago
when kids during the napster era were downloading music, the mega-corporations yelled that their bottom-lines to shareholders were being destroyed. now, when the mega-corporations do it, it is 'just the cost of doing business'. in both cases, the mega-corporations win because...they have the most money. law, and certainly justice, is not for the poor. at least not in america.

selfselfgo 1y ago

To me it’s a totally insane argument from the judge, if it doesn’t stop the authors from making money on their works, then the judge is basically capping the income on all writers. The AI is totally useless without their knowledge and yet they have to prove they aren’t hurting its profits. Like these authors are entitled to derivative uses of their writing, if they’re not it’s a total farce.

doctorpangloss 1y ago

Hacker News readers want simple, first principles answers that fit in a tweet, that require no reading, let alone case law, to understand. This trial is way beyond the statutes and case law. The judge is doing a job, hard to conceive what the best job would be - I'm not sure Congress even knows what the policy should be or if the public has even the faintest wiff of how things should work.

pessimizer 1y ago

> “It seems like you’re asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman’s memoir will be affected,” he told Boies. “It’s not obvious to me that is the case.” "LLM, please summarize Sarah Silverman's memoir for me." edit: Reader's Digest would be very surprised to know that they shouldn't have been paying for books.

Dylan16807 1y ago
If you do that, it won't be able to give you a summary detailed enough to infringe anything.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  It may give me a summary good enough that I don't have to buy the book, since it read the book. If there are any parts that aren't detailed enough for me, I can ask them to be expanded. If you're telling me that's not "infringing," you should follow what up with the argument for why it is not.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    Lots of websites will give you summaries of books and they never get sued for that, let alone lose. If you ask the LLM for the summary to be expanded much, and you're not providing it with a fresh copy of the book to reference, it's going to be wrong.
  - gs17 1y ago
    > It may give me a summary good enough that I don't have to buy the book, since it read the book. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles with summaries good enough "to not have to buy the book", because they were written by people who read the book. Should those be taken down?

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"The title of this submission is somewhate misleading." Better to read the submission before drawing conclusions rather than only the HN title. In this case the HN title has been editorialised. The actual title of the article is "A Judge Says Meta's AI Copyright Case Is About `the Next Taylor Swift'" "The judge didn't make any sort of ruling, this is just reporting on a pretrial hearing." The HN title doesn't mention anything about a "ruling". Nor does the title chosen by Wired. The subheading in the article reads "Meta's contentious AI copyright battle is heating up-and the court may be close to a ruling." That is accurate. The Court will soon decide the SJ motions. Reading the article leaves no chance of being mislead by any title: "If Chhabria grants either motion, he'll issue a ruling before the case goes to trial-and likely set an important precedent shaping how courts deal with generative AI copyright cases moving forward."