4 ms·
My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't o
by Lio 1y ago
My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't own.
I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act.
It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.
- vessenes 1y agoIt's because in the US, you are granted the right to copy (copyright) broadly and under a number of circumstances. The creator is given a right to prevent copying under a limited (albeit very broad) set of circumstances. Since we have a usage based assessment system on the major chip in the right to prevent copying, "fair use", which by the way is designed specifically for the common good -- enhancing the overall value to society of works that are limited by their creators -- its not about the copying. Its about the usage. Reading by an llm is fair usage in this case according to this judge's early speculations.