FYI, the Copyright Office doesn’t enforce copyright law or determine its correct interpretation. Courts do. The legal analysis in this report is really just a

FYI, the Copyright Office doesn’t enforce copyright law or determine its correct interpretation. Courts do. The legal analysis in this report is really just a suggestion, and judges probably won’t give it too much weight. As for illegal access, I agree that the report uses the term a bit too loosely. But as we’ve seen in the Meta case, some companies have obtained training material not through TOS-violating downloads but through literal (unauthorized) torrents. As we’ve also seen in the Meta case, even torrenting is technically not copyright infringement if you’re not seeding. But the process does rely on someone else seeding, so the report doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable in suggesting that this could “reflect bad faith” or “bear on the character of the use”.